case study method of personality assessment

Personality Assessments: 10 Best Inventories, Tests, & Methods

Perhaps they respond differently to news or react differently to your feedback. They voice different opinions and values and, as such, behave differently.

If you respond with a resounding yes, we understand the challenges you face.

As more and more organizations diversify their talent, a new challenge emerges of how to get the best out of employees and teams of all personality configurations.

In this article, we embark on a whistle-stop tour of the science of personality, focusing on personality assessments to measure clients’ and employees’ character plus the benefits of doing so, before rounding off with practical tools for those who want to bolster their professional toolkits.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Strengths Exercises for free . These detailed, science-based exercises will help your clients or employees realize their unique potential and create a life that feels energizing and authentic.

This Article Contains

What are personality assessments in psychology, 4 methods and types of personality assessments, 7 evidence-based inventories, scales, and tests.

• Helpful Tools & Questions

Fascinating Books About Personality Assessments

Resources from positivepsychology.com, a take-home message.

Personality is a tricky concept to define in concrete terms, and this is reflected both in the number of personality theories that exist and the lack of consensus among personality psychologists.

However, for this article, we can think of personality as the totality of one’s behavioral patterns and subjective experiences (Kernberg, 2016).

All individuals have a constellation of traits and experiences that make them unique yet simultaneously suggest that there are some generalizable or distinct qualities inherent in all humans.

In psychology, we are interested in understanding how traits and qualities that people possess cluster together and the extent to which these vary across and within individuals.

Now, it’s all very well and good knowing that personality exists as a concept and that your employees and clients differ in their groupings of traits and subjective experiences, but how can you apply this information to your professional work with them?

This is where measuring and assessing personality comes into play. Like most psychological concepts, researchers want to show that theoretical knowledge can be useful for working life and brought to bear in the real world.

For example, knowing a client’s or employee’s personality can be key to setting them up for success at work and pursuing and achieving work-related goals. But we first need to identify or assess personality before we can help others to reap these benefits.

Personality assessments are used for several reasons.

First, they can provide professionals with an opportunity to identify their strengths and reaffirm their sense of self. It is no coincidence that research on strengths is so popular or that strengths have such a prominent place in the working world. People like to know who they are, and they want to capitalize on the qualities and traits they possess.

Second, personality assessments can provide professionals with a social advantage by helping them to understand how they are perceived by others such as colleagues, managers, and stakeholders — the looking glass self (Cooley, 1902).

In the sections below, we will explore different personality assessments and popular evidence-based scales.

1. Self-report assessments

Self-reports are one of the most widely used formats for psychometric testing. They are as they sound: reports or questionnaires that a client or employee completes themselves (and often scores themselves).

Self-report measures can come in many formats. The most common are Likert scales where individuals are asked to rate numerically (from 1 to 7 for example) the extent to which they feel that each question describes their thoughts, feelings, or behaviors.

These types of assessments are popular because they are easy to distribute and complete, they are often cost effective, and they can provide helpful insights into behavior. Self-reports can be completed in both personal and professional settings and can be particularly helpful in a coaching practice, for example.

However, they also have downsides to be wary of, including an increase in unconscious biases such as the social desirability bias (i.e., the desire to answer “correctly”). They can also be prone to individuals not paying attention, not answering truthfully, or not fully understanding the questions asked.

Such issues can lead to an inaccurate assessment of personality.

However, if you are a professional working with clients in any capacity, it is advised to first try out any self-report measure before suggesting them to clients. In this way, you can gauge for yourself the usefulness and validity of the measure.

2. Behavioral observation

Another useful method of personality assessment is behavioral observation. This method entails someone observing and documenting a person’s behavior.

While this method is more resource heavy in terms of time and requires an observer (preferably one who is experienced and qualified in observing and coding the behavior), it can be useful as a complementary method employed alongside self-reports because it can provide an external corroboration of behavior.

Alternatively, behavioral observation can fail to corroborate self-report scores, raising the question of how reliably an individual has answered their self-report.

3. Interviews

Interviews are used widely from clinical settings to workplaces to determine an individual’s personality. Even a job interview is a test of behavioral patterns and experiences (i.e., personality).

During such interviews, the primary aim is to gather as much information as possible by using probing questions. Responses should be recorded, and there should be a standardized scoring system to determine the outcome of the interview (for example, whether the candidate is suitable for the role).

While interviews can elicit rich data about a client or employee, they are also subject to the unconscious biases of the interviewers and can be open to interpretation if there is no method for scoring or evaluating the interviewee.

4. Projective tests

These types of tests are unusual in that they present individuals with an abstract or vague object, task, or activity and require them to describe what they see. The idea here is that the unfiltered interpretation can provide insight into the person’s psychology and way of thinking.

A well-known example of a projective test is the Rorschach inkblot test. However, there are limitations to projective tests due to their interpretative nature and the lack of a consistent or quantifiable way of coding or scoring individuals’ responses.

Download 3 Free Strengths Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will equip you or your clients with tools to discover and harness their unique strengths.

Download 3 Free Strengths Tools Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

Personality assessments can be used in the workplace during recruitment to gauge whether someone would be a good fit for a job or organization and to help determine job performance, career progression, and development.

Below, we highlight a few commonly used inventories and tests for such career assessments.

1. The Hogan personality inventory (HPI)

The Hogan personality inventory (Hogan & Hogan, 2002) is a self-report personality assessment created by Robert Hogan and Joyce Hogan in the late 1970s.

It was originally based on the California Personality Inventory (Gough, 1975) and also draws upon the five-factor model of personality. The five-factor model of personality suggests there are five key dimensions of personality: openness to experience , conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (Digman, 1990).

The Hogan assessment comprises 206 items across seven different scales that measure and predict social behavior and social outcomes rather than traits or qualities , as do other popular personality measures.

These seven scales include:

• Sociability
• Interpersonal sensitivity
• Inquisitiveness
• Learning approach

The HPI’s primary use is within organizations to help with recruitment and the development of leaders. It is a robust scale with over 40 years of evidence to support it, and the scale itself takes roughly 15–20 minutes to complete (Hogan Assessments, n.d.).

2. DISC test

The DISC test of personality developed by Merenda and Clarke (1965) is a very popular personality self-assessment used primarily within the corporate world. It is based on the emotional and behavioral DISC theory (Marston, 1928), which measures individuals on four dimensions of behavior:

The self-report comprises 24 questions and takes roughly 10 minutes to complete. While the test is simpler and quicker to complete than other popular tests (e.g., the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator), it has been subject to criticism regarding its psychometric properties.

3. Gallup – CliftonStrengths™ Assessment

Unlike the DISC test, the CliftonStrengths™ assessment , employed by Gallup and based on the work of Marcus Buckingham and Don Clifton (2001), is a questionnaire designed specifically to help individuals identify strengths in the workplace and learn how to use them.

The assessment is a self-report Likert scale comprising 177 questions and takes roughly 30 minutes to complete. Once scored, the assessment provides individuals with 34 strength themes organized into four key domains:

• Strategic thinking
• Influencing
• Relationship building

The scale has a solid theoretical and empirical grounding, making it a popular workplace assessment around the world.

4. NEO-PI-R

The NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 2008) is a highly popular self-report personality assessment based on Allport and Odbert’s (1936) trait theory of personality.

With good reliability, this scale has amassed a large evidence base, making it an appealing inventory for many. The NEO-PI-R assesses an individual’s strengths, talents, and weaknesses and is often used by employers to identify suitable candidates for job openings.

It uses the big five factors of personality (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) and also includes an additional six subcategories within the big five, providing a detailed breakdown of each personality dimension.

The scale itself comprises 240 questions that describe different behaviors and takes roughly 30–40 minutes to complete. Interestingly, this inventory can be administered as a self-report or, alternatively, as an observational report, making it a favored assessment among professionals.

5. Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ)

The EPQ is a personality assessment developed by personality psychologists Hans Eysenck and Sybil Eysenck (1975).

The scale results from successive revisions and improvements of earlier scales: the Maudsley Personality Inventory (Eysenck 1959) and Eysenck Personality Inventory (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1964).

The aim of the EPQ is to measure the three dimensions of personality as espoused by Eysenck’s psychoticism–extraversion–neuroticism theory of personality The scale itself uses a Likert format and was revised and shortened in 1992 to include 48 items (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1992).

This is a generally useful scale; however, some researchers have found that there are reliability issues with the psychoticism subscale, likely because this was a later addition to the scale.

6. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)

The MMPI (Hathaway & McKinley, 1943) is one of the most widely used personality inventories in the world and uses a true/false format of questioning.

It was initially designed to assess mental health problems in clinical settings during the 1940s and uses 10 clinical subscales to assess different psychological conditions.

The inventory was revised in the 1980s, resulting in the MMPI-2, which comprised 567 questions, and again in 2020, resulting in the MMPI-3, which comprises a streamlined 338 questions.

While the revised MMPI-3 takes a lengthy 35–50 minutes to complete, it remains popular to this day, particularly in clinical settings, and enables the accurate capture of aspects of psychopathy and mental health disturbance. The test has good reliability but must be administered by a professional.

7. 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF)

The 16PF (Cattell et al., 1970) is another rating scale inventory used primarily in clinical settings to identify psychiatric disorders by measuring “normal” personality traits.

Cattell identified 16 primary personality traits, with five secondary or global traits underneath that map onto the big five factors of personality.

These include such traits as warmth, reasoning, and emotional stability, to name a few. The most recent version of the questionnaire (the fifth edition) comprises 185 multiple-choice questions that ask about routine behaviors on a 10-point scale and takes roughly 35–50 minutes to complete.

The scale is easy to administer and well validated but must be administered by a professional.

World’s Largest Positive Psychology Resource

The Positive Psychology Toolkit© is a groundbreaking practitioner resource containing over 500 science-based exercises , activities, interventions, questionnaires, and assessments created by experts using the latest positive psychology research.

Updated monthly. 100% Science-based.

“The best positive psychology resource out there!” — Emiliya Zhivotovskaya , Flourishing Center CEO

Helpful Tools & Questions

In addition to the collection of science-based interventions, we also have to mention a controversial but well-known personality assessment tool: Myers-Briggs.

We share two informative videos on this topic and then move on to a short collection of questions that can be used for career development.

1. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

A mother and daughter team developed the MBTI in the 1940s during the Second World War. The MBTI comprises 93 questions that aim to measure an individual on four different dimensions of personality:

• Introversion/extraversion
• Sensing/ intuition
• Thinking/feeling
• Judging/perceiving

The test provides individuals with a type of personality out of a possible 16 combinations. Whilst this test is a favorite in workplaces, there are serious criticisms leveled at how the scale was developed and the lack of rigorous evidence to support its use.

For more information on the MBTI, you might enjoy the below videos:

We recommend that if you employ MBTI, be mindful of its scientific deficiencies and support your personality testing further by completing an additional validated scale.

10 Career development questions

• Tell me about what inspires you. What gets you out of bed in the morning?
• Tell me about your vision for your career/life.
• What aspects of your role do you love? What aspects do you struggle with?
• Tell me about a time where you used your strengths to achieve a positive outcome.
• Are there any healthy habits you want to build into your work life?
• Describe your perfect working day. What would it look like?
• Tell me about your fears.
• What do you value most about your job?
• What goals are you currently working toward?
• How would your work colleagues describe you?

If you are interested in learning more about personality and personality assessments, the following three books are an excellent place to start.

These books were chosen because they give an excellent overview of what personality is and how it can be measured. They also illuminate some issues with personality assessments. They provide a good grounding for any professional looking to implement personality assessments in the workplace.

1. Mindset: Changing the Way You Think to Fulfil Your Potential – Carol Dweck

Enter Dr. Carol Dweck and several decades of psychological research she has conducted on motivation and personality.

The main thesis of the book is to explore the idea that people can have either a fixed or growth mindset (i.e., beliefs we hold about ourselves and the world around us). Adopting a growth mindset can be a critical determinant of outcomes such as performance and academic success.

Find the book on Amazon .

2. The Personality Brokers: The Strange History of Myers-Briggs and the Birth of Personality Testing – Merve Emre

If you are interested in the dark side of psychology assessments, this is the book for you.

This book explores how the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator was developed and discusses the questionable validity of the scale despite its widespread popularity in the corporate world.

While many assessments can be helpful for self-reflecting on your own behavior, The Personality Brokers delve into the murky side of how psychological concepts can be used for monetary gains, even when evidence is lacking or disputed.

3. Psychological Types – Carl Jung

This is an excellent book from one of history’s most influential psychologists: Carl Jung.

The book focuses most on extraversion and introversion as the two key types of personality and also discusses the limitations of categorizing individuals into “types” of personality.

For those interested in the science of personality and who prefer a slightly heavier, academic read, this book is for you.

Interested in supplementing your professional life by exploring personality types? Here at PositivePsychology.com, we have several highly useful resources.

Maximizing Strengths Masterclass©

While strengths finding is a distinct and popular topic within positive psychology, we can draw parallels between strengths research and some conceptualizations of personality.

The Maximizing Strengths Masterclass© is designed to help clients reach their potential by looking at their strengths and what energizes them and helping them delve into their authentic selves. As a six-module coaching package, it includes 19 videos, a practitioner handbook, slide presentations, and much more.

Recommended Reading

For more information on personality psychology and personality assessments, check out the following related articles.

• Big Five Personality Traits: The OCEAN Model Explained
• Personality & Character Traits: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly
• Personal Strengths Defined (+ List of 92 Personal Strengths)

17 Career exercises

Designed to help people use their personality and strengths at work, this collection of 17 work and career coaching exercises is grounded in scientific evidence. The exercises help individuals and clients identify areas for career growth and development. Some of these exercises include:

• Achievement Story Chart your successes at work, take time to reflect on your achievements, and identify how to use your strengths for growth.
• Job Analysis Through a Strengths Lens Identify your strengths and opportunities to use them when encountering challenges at work.
• Job Satisfaction Wheel Complete the job satisfaction wheel, which measures your current levels of happiness at work across seven different dimensions.
• What Work Means to You Identify how meaningful your work is to you by assessing your motivational orientation toward work (i.e., whether it is something you are called to and that aligns with your sense of self).

If you’re looking for more science-based ways to help others develop their strengths, this collection contains 17 strength-finding tools for practitioners. Use them to help others better understand and harness their strengths in life-enhancing ways.

17 Exercises To Discover & Unlock Strengths

Use these 17 Strength-Finding Exercises [PDF] to help others discover and leverage their unique strengths in life, promoting enhanced performance and flourishing.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

When managing people, it is always helpful to have insight into why they behave the way they do. The same applies to assisting someone on their career path. Having an understanding of the qualities that influence behavioral responses can improve relationships, parenting, how people work, and even goal setting.

But there are some caveats to be mindful of:

• When using self-reports, take the scores with a pinch of salt, particularly as we all operate with unconscious biases that can skew results.
• Remain open minded about our personality traits; if we are resigned to the idea that they are inherited at birth, fixed, and unchanging, we are unlikely to gain any real discernment into our own evolving identity.
• Labels can oftentimes be limiting. Trying to condense the myriad aspects of an individual into a neat “personality” category could backfire.

In the right hands, validated personality assessments are valuable tools for guiding clients on the right career path, ensuring a good job fit and building strong teams.

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Strengths Exercises for free .

• Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs , 47 (1), i–171.
• Buckingham, M., & Clifton, D. O. (2001). Now, discover your strengths . Simon and Schuster.
• Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire . Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
• Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order . Transaction.
• Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (2008). The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) . In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment, Vol. 2. Personality measurement and testing (pp. 179–198). SAGE.
• Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology , 41 (1), 417–440.
• Eysenck, H. J. (1959). Manual of the Maudsley Personality Inventory . University of London Press.
• Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1964). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory . University of London Press.
• Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire . Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
• Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1992). Manual for the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire–Revised . Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
• Gough, H. G. (1975). Manual: The California Psychological Inventory (Rev. ed.). Consulting Psychologist Press.
• Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1943). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (Rev. ed., 2nd printing). University of Minnesota Press.
• Hogan Assessments. (n.d.). About. Retrieved May 8, 2023, from https://www.hoganassessments.com/about/.
• Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2002). The Hogan personality inventory. In B. de Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big five assessment (pp. 329–346). Hogrefe & Huber.
• Kernberg, O. F. (2016). What is personality? Journal of Personality Disorders , 30 (2), 145–156.
• Marston, W. M. (1928). Emotions of normal people . Kegan Paul Trench Trubner and Company.
• Merenda, P. F., & Clarke, W. V. (1965). Self description and personality measurement. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21 , 52–56.
• Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator . Palo Alto Consulting Psychologists Press.

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

Very insightful yet easy to read article, thank you for sharing! Have you heard of the Strength Finder test from Personality Quizzes? https://www.personality-quizzes.com/strength-finder It’s a free version of Clifton Strengths (although you have to pay to see complete results). I liked the experience, may be worth updating the list!

I learned so much. This article gave me more food for thought.

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

Type B Personality Advantages: Stress Less, Achieve More

Type B personalities, known for their relaxed, patient, and easygoing nature, offer unique advantages in both personal and professional contexts. There are myriad benefits to [...]

Jungian Psychology: Unraveling the Unconscious Mind

Alongside Sigmund Freud, the Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Carl Gustav Jung (1875–1961) is one of the most important innovators in the field of modern depth [...]

12 Jungian Archetypes: The Foundation of Personality

In the vast tapestry of human existence, woven with the threads of individual experiences and collective consciousness, lies a profound understanding of the human psyche. [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (52)
• Coaching & Application (39)
• Compassion (23)
• Counseling (40)
• Emotional Intelligence (22)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (18)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (26)
• Meditation (16)
• Mindfulness (40)
• Motivation & Goals (41)
• Optimism & Mindset (29)
• Positive CBT (28)
• Positive Communication (23)
• Positive Education (37)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (16)
• Positive Parenting (14)
• Positive Psychology (21)
• Positive Workplace (35)
• Productivity (16)
• Relationships (46)
• Resilience & Coping (39)
• Self Awareness (20)
• Self Esteem (37)
• Strengths & Virtues (29)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (33)
• Theory & Books (43)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (54)

Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption

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 .

Login Alert

• > The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology
• > Personality Assessment Methods

Book contents

• The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology
• Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
• Copyright page
• Contributors
• General Introduction
• Part I Foundational Issues: History and Approaches to Personality
• Part II Description and Measurement: How Personality Is Studied
• 7 Personality Assessment Methods
• 8 Models of Personality Structure
• 9 The Five-Factor Model of Personality: Consensus and Controversy
• 10 Personality and Intelligence
• Part III Development, Health and Change: Life Span and Health Outcomes
• Part IV Biological Perspectives: Evolution, Genetics and Neuroscience of Personality
• Part V Cognitive and Motivational Perspectives: Dynamic Processes of Personality
• Part VI Social and Cultural Processes: Personality at the Intersection of Society
• Part VII Applications of Personality Psychology: Personality Traits and Processes in Action
• Addendum: Statistical Analyses and Computer Programming in Personality

7 - Personality Assessment Methods

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2020

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).

Access options

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 .

• Personality Assessment Methods
• By Gregory J. Boyle , Edward Helmes
• Edited by Philip J. Corr , City, University London , Gerald Matthews , University of Central Florida
• Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology
• Online publication: 18 September 2020
• Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108264822.011

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 .

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 .

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Numismatics
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Social History
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Meta-Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Legal System - Costs and Funding
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Restitution
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Social Issues in Business and Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Social Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Sustainability
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• Ethnic Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Disability Studies
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

5 C5 The Interpersonal Situation: Integrating Personality Assessment, Case Formulation, and Intervention

• Published: February 2019
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Interpersonal theory assumes that the most important expressions of personality and psychopathology occur in interpersonal situations between a self and an other, and that personality pathology is best understood in terms of patterned affective, behavioral, and self dysregulations as well as perceptual distortions in these interpersonal situations. This chapter presents an evidence-based model of interpersonal situations that is structured by dimensions relevant to the self (agency and communion), interpersonal behavior (dominance and warmth), and affect (valence and arousal). This dimensions in this structure can be assessed as relatively stable traits or as dynamic processes. The ability of the interpersonal situation model to provide a useful heuristic model for testable clinical hypotheses is illustrated through a case study of David.

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

3 Personality Assessment

This is an edited and adapted chapter from Watson, D. (2019) in the NOBA series on psychology.  For full attribution see end of chapter.

This module provides a basic overview to the assessment of personality. It discusses objective personality tests (based on both self-report and informant ratings), projective and implicit tests, and behavioral/performance measures. It describes the basic features of each method, as well as reviewing the strengths, weaknesses, and overall validity of each approach.

Learning Objectives

• Appreciate the diversity of methods that are used to measure personality characteristics.
• Understand the logic, strengths and weaknesses of each approach.
• Gain a better sense of the overall validity and range of applications of personality tests.

Introduction

Personality is the field within psychology that studies the thoughts, feelings, behaviors, goals, and interests of normal individuals. It therefore covers a very wide range of important psychological characteristics. Moreover, different theoretical models have generated very different strategies for measuring these characteristics. For example, humanistically oriented models argue that people have clear, well-defined goals and are actively striving to achieve them (McGregor, McAdams, & Little, 2006). It, therefore, makes sense to ask them directly about themselves and their goals. In contrast, psychodynamically oriented theories propose that people lack insight into their feelings and motives, such that their behavior is influenced by processes that operate outside of their awareness (e.g., McClelland, Koestner, & Weinberger, 1989; Meyer & Kurtz, 2006). Given that people are unaware of these processes, it does not make sense to ask directly about them. One, therefore, needs to adopt an entirely different approach to identify these nonconscious factors. Not surprisingly, researchers have adopted a wide range of approaches to measure important personality characteristics. The most widely used strategies will be summarized in the following sections.

Objective Tests

Objective tests (Loevinger, 1957; Meyer & Kurtz, 2006) represent the most familiar and widely used approach to assessing personality. Objective tests involve administering a standard set of items, each of which is answered using a limited set of response options (e.g., true or false; strongly disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, strongly agree). Responses to these items then are scored in a standardized, predetermined way. For example, self-ratings on items assessing talkativeness, assertiveness, sociability, adventurousness, and energy can be summed up to create an overall score on the personality trait of extraversion.

It must be emphasized that the term “objective” refers to the method that is used to  score  a person’s responses, rather than to the responses themselves. As noted by Meyer and Kurtz (2006, p. 233), “What is  objective  about such a procedure is that the psychologist administering the test does not need to rely on judgment to classify or interpret the test-taker’s response; the intended response is clearly indicated and scored according to a pre-existing key.” In fact, as we will see, a person’s test responses may be highly subjective and can be influenced by a number of different rating biases.

Basic Types of Objective Tests

Self-report measures.

Objective personality tests can be further subdivided into two basic types. The first type—which easily is the most widely used in modern personality research—asks people to describe themselves. This approach offers two key advantages. First, self-raters have access to an unparalleled wealth of information: After all, who knows more about you than you yourself? In particular, self-raters have direct access to their own thoughts, feelings, and motives, which may not be readily available to others (Oh, Wang, & Mount, 2011; Watson, Hubbard, & Weise, 2000). Second, asking people to describe themselves is the simplest, easiest, and most cost-effective approach to assessing personality. Countless studies, for instance, have involved administering self-report measures to college students, who are provided some relatively simple incentive (e.g., extra course credit) to participate.

The items included in self-report measures may consist of single words (e.g.,  assertive ), short phrases (e.g.,  am full of energy ), or complete sentences (e.g.,  I like to spend time with others ). Table 1 presents a sample self-report measure assessing the general traits comprising the influential five-factor model (FFM) of personality: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (John & Srivastava, 1999; McCrae, Costa, & Martin, 2005). The sentences shown in Table 1 are modified versions of items included in the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) (Goldberg et al., 2006), which is a rich source of personality-related content in the public domain (for more information about IPIP, go to: http://ipip.ori.org/).

Self-report personality tests show impressive  validity  in relation to a wide range of important outcomes. For example, self-ratings of conscientiousness are significant predictors of both overall academic performance (e.g., cumulative grade point average; Poropat, 2009) and job performance (Oh, Wang, and Mount, 2011). Roberts, Kuncel, Shiner, Caspi, and Goldberg (2007) reported that self-rated personality predicted occupational attainment, divorce, and mortality. Similarly, Friedman, Kern, and Reynolds (2010) showed that personality ratings collected early in life were related to happiness/well-being, physical health, and mortality risk assessed several decades later. Finally, self-reported personality has important and pervasive links to psychopathology. Most notably, self-ratings of neuroticism are associated with a wide array of clinical syndromes, including anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, substance use disorders, somatoform disorders, eating disorders, personality and conduct disorders, and schizophrenia/schizotypy (Kotov, Gamez, Schmidt, & Watson, 2010; Mineka, Watson, & Clark, 1998).

At the same time, however, it is clear that this method is limited in a number of ways. First, raters may be motivated to present themselves in an overly favorable, socially desirable way (Paunonen & LeBel, 2012). This is a particular concern in “ high-stakes testing ,” that is, situations in which test scores are used to make important decisions about individuals (e.g., when applying for a job). Second, personality ratings reflect a  self-enhancement bias  (Vazire & Carlson, 2011); in other words, people are motivated to ignore (or at least downplay) some of their less desirable characteristics and to focus instead on their more positive attributes. Third, self-ratings are subject to the reference group effect (Heine, Buchtel, & Norenzayan, 2008); that is, we base our self-perceptions, in part, on how we compare to others in our sociocultural reference group. For instance, if you tend to work harder than most of your friends, you will see yourself as someone who is relatively conscientious, even if you are not particularly conscientious in any absolute sense.

Informant ratings

Another approach is to ask someone who knows a person well to describe their personality characteristics. In the case of children or adolescents, the informant is most likely to be a parent or teacher. In studies of older participants, informants may be friends, roommates, dating partners, spouses, children, or bosses (Oh et al., 2011; Vazire & Carlson, 2011; Watson et al., 2000).

Generally speaking, informant ratings are similar in format to self-ratings. As was the case with self-report, items may consist of single words, short phrases, or complete sentences. Indeed, many popular instruments include parallel self- and informant-rating versions, and it often is relatively easy to convert a self-report measure so that it can be used to obtain informant ratings. Table 2 illustrates how the self-report instrument shown in Table 1 can be converted to obtain spouse-ratings (in this case, having a husband describe the personality characteristics of his wife).

Informant ratings are particularly valuable when self-ratings are impossible to collect (e.g., when studying young children or cognitively impaired adults) or when their validity is suspect (e.g., as noted earlier, people may not be entirely honest in high-stakes testing situations). They also may be combined with self-ratings of the same characteristics to produce more reliable and valid measures of these attributes (McCrae, 1994).

Informant ratings offer several advantages in comparison to other approaches to assessing personality. A well-acquainted informant presumably has had the opportunity to observe large samples of behavior in the person they are rating. Moreover, these judgments presumably are not subject to the types of defensiveness that potentially can distort self-ratings (Vazire & Carlson, 2011). Indeed, informants typically have strong incentives for being accurate in their judgments. As Funder and Dobroth (1987, p. 409), put it, “Evaluations of the people in our social environment are central to our decisions about who to befriend and avoid, trust and distrust, hire and fire, and so on.”

Informant personality ratings have demonstrated a level of validity in relation to important life outcomes that is comparable to that discussed earlier for self-ratings. Indeed, they outperform self-ratings in certain circumstances, particularly when the assessed traits are highly evaluative in nature (e.g., intelligence, charm, creativity; see Vazire & Carlson, 2011). For example, Oh et al. (2011) found that informant ratings were more strongly related to job performance than were self-ratings. Similarly, Oltmanns and Turkheimer (2009) summarized evidence indicating that informant ratings of Air Force cadets predicted early, involuntary discharge from the military better than self-ratings.

Nevertheless, informant ratings also are subject to certain problems and limitations. One general issue is the level of relevant information that is available to the rater (Funder, 2012). For instance, even under the best of circumstances, informants lack full access to the thoughts, feelings, and motives of the person they are rating. This problem is magnified when the informant does not know the person particularly well and/or only sees the person in a limited range of situations (Funder, 2012; Beer & Watson, 2010).

Informant ratings also are subject to some of the same response biases noted earlier for self-ratings. For instance, they are not immune to the reference group effect. Indeed, it is well-established that parent ratings often are subject to a  sibling contrast effect ,  such that parents exaggerate the true magnitude of differences between their children (Pinto, Rijsdijk, Frazier-Wood, Asherson, & Kuntsi, 2012). Furthermore, in many studies, individuals are allowed to nominate (or even recruit) the informants who will rate them. Because of this, it most often is the case that informants (who, as noted earlier, may be friends, relatives, or romantic partners) like the people they are rating. This, in turn, means that informants may produce overly favorable personality ratings. Indeed, their ratings actually can be more favorable than the corresponding self-ratings (Watson & Humrichouse, 2006). This tendency for informants to produce unrealistically positive ratings has been termed the letter of recommendation effect (Leising, Erbs, & Fritz, 2010) and the  honeymoon effect  when applied to newlyweds (Watson & Humrichouse, 2006).

Other Ways of Classifying Objective Tests

Comprehensiveness.

In addition to the source of the scores, there are at least two other important dimensions on which personality tests differ. The first such dimension concerns the extent to which an instrument seeks to assess personality in a reasonably comprehensive manner. At one extreme, many widely used measures are designed to assess a single core attribute. Examples of these types of measures include the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (Bagby, Parker, & Taylor, 1994), the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965), and the Multidimensional Experiential Avoidance Questionnaire (Gamez, Chmielewski, Kotov, Ruggero, & Watson, 2011). At the other extreme, a number of omnibus inventories contain a large number of specific scales and purport to measure personality in a reasonably comprehensive manner. These instruments include the California Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1987), the Revised HEXACO Personality Inventory (HEXACO-PI-R) (Lee & Ashton, 2006), the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (Patrick, Curtin, & Tellegen, 2002), the NEO Personality Inventory-3 (NEO-PI-3) (McCrae et al., 2005), the Personality Research Form (Jackson, 1984), and the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1980).

Breadth of the target characteristics

Second, personality characteristics can be classified at different levels of breadth or generality. For example, many models emphasize broad, “big” traits such as neuroticism and extraversion. These general dimensions can be divided up into several distinct yet empirically correlated component traits. For example, the broad dimension of extraversion contains such specific component traits as dominance (extraverts are assertive, persuasive, and exhibitionistic), sociability (extraverts seek out and enjoy the company of others), positive emotionality (extraverts are active, energetic, cheerful, and enthusiastic), and adventurousness (extraverts enjoy intense, exciting experiences).

Some popular personality instruments are designed to assess only the broad, general traits. For example, similar to the sample instrument displayed in Table 1, the Big Five Inventory (John & Srivastava, 1999) contains brief scales assessing the broad traits of neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. In contrast, many instruments—including several of the omnibus inventories mentioned earlier—were designed primarily to assess a large number of more specific characteristics. Finally, some inventories—including the HEXACO-PI-R and the NEO-PI-3—were explicitly designed to provide coverage of both general and specific trait characteristics. For instance, the NEO-PI-3 contains six specific facet scales (e.g., Gregariousness, Assertiveness, Positive Emotions, Excitement Seeking) that then can be combined to assess the broad trait of extraversion.

Projective and Implicit Tests

Projective tests.

As noted earlier, some approaches to personality assessment are based on the belief that important thoughts, feelings, and motives operate outside of conscious awareness. Projective tests represent influential early examples of this approach. Projective tests originally were based on the  projective hypothesis  (Frank, 1939; Lilienfeld, Wood, & Garb, 2000): If a person is asked to describe or interpret ambiguous stimuli—that is, things that can be understood in a number of different ways—their responses will be influenced by nonconscious needs , feelings, and experiences (note, however, that the theoretical rationale underlying these measures has evolved over time) (see, for example, Spangler, 1992). Two prominent examples of projective tests are the Rorschach Inkblot Test (Rorschach, 1921) and the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) (Morgan & Murray, 1935). The former asks respondents to interpret symmetrical blots of ink, whereas the latter asks them to generate stories about a series of pictures.

For instance, one TAT picture depicts an elderly woman with her back turned to a young man; the latter looks downward with a somewhat perplexed expression. Another picture displays a man clutched from behind by three mysterious hands. What stories could you generate in response to these pictures?

In comparison to objective tests, projective tests tend to be somewhat cumbersome and labor intensive to administer. The biggest challenge, however, has been to develop a reliable and valid scheme to score the extensive set of responses generated by each respondent. The most widely used Rorschach scoring scheme is the Comprehensive System developed by Exner (2003). The most influential TAT scoring system was developed by McClelland, Atkinson and colleagues between 1947 and 1953 (McClelland et al., 1989; see also Winter, 1998), which can be used to assess motives such as the need for achievement.

The validity of the Rorschach has been a matter of considerable controversy (Lilienfeld et al., 2000; Mihura, Meyer, Dumitrascu, & Bombel, 2012; Society for Personality Assessment, 2005). Most reviews acknowledge that Rorschach scores do show some ability to predict important outcomes. Its critics, however, argue that it fails to provide important incremental information beyond other, more easily acquired information, such as that obtained from standard self-report measures (Lilienfeld et al., 2000).

Validity evidence is more impressive for the TAT. In particular, reviews have concluded that TAT-based measures of the need for achievement (a) show significant validity to predict important criteria and (b) provide important information beyond that obtained from objective measures of this motive (McClelland et al., 1989; Spangler, 1992). Furthermore, given the relatively weak associations between objective and projective measures of motives, McClelland et al. (1989) argue that they tap somewhat different processes, with the latter assessing  implicit motives  (Schultheiss, 2008).

Implicit Tests

In recent years, researchers have begun to use implicit measures of personality (Back, Schmuckle, & Egloff, 2009; Vazire & Carlson, 2011). These tests are based on the assumption that people form automatic or implicit associations between certain concepts based on their previous experience and behavior. If two concepts (e.g.,  me and  assertive ) are strongly associated with each other, then they should be sorted together more quickly and easily than two concepts (e.g.,  me  and  shy ) that are less strongly associated. Although validity evidence for these measures still is relatively sparse, the results to date are encouraging: Back et al. (2009), for example, showed that implicit measures of the FFM personality traits predicted behavior even after controlling for scores on objective measures of these same characteristics.

Behavioral and Performance Measures

A final approach is to infer important personality characteristics from direct samples of behavior. For example, Funder and Colvin (1988) brought opposite-sex pairs of participants into the laboratory and had them engage in a five-minute “getting acquainted” conversation; raters watched videotapes of these interactions and then scored the participants on various personality characteristics. Mehl, Gosling, and Pennebaker (2006) used the electronically activated recorder (EAR) to obtain samples of ambient sounds in participants’ natural environments over a period of two days; EAR-based scores then were related to self- and observer-rated measures of personality. For instance, more frequent talking over this two-day period was significantly related to both self- and observer-ratings of extraversion. As a final example, Gosling, Ko, Mannarelli, and Morris (2002) sent observers into college students’ bedrooms and then had them rate the students’ personality characteristics on the Big Five traits. The averaged observer ratings correlated significantly with participants’ self-ratings on all five traits. Follow-up analyses indicated that conscientious students had neater rooms, whereas those who were high in openness to experience had a wider variety of books and magazines.

Behavioral measures offer several advantages over other approaches to assessing personality. First, because behavior is sampled directly, this approach is not subject to the types of response biases (e.g., self-enhancement bias, reference group effect) that can distort scores on objective tests. Second, as is illustrated by the Mehl et al. (2006) and Gosling et al. (2002) studies, this approach allows people to be studied in their daily lives and in their natural environments, thereby avoiding the artificiality of other methods (Mehl et al., 2006). Finally, this is the only approach that actually assesses what people  do,  as opposed to what they think or feel (see Baumeister, Vohs, & Funder, 2007).

At the same time, however, this approach also has some disadvantages. This assessment strategy clearly is much more cumbersome and labor intensive than using objective tests, particularly self-report. Moreover, similar to projective tests, behavioral measures generate a rich set of data that then need to be scored in a reliable and valid way. Finally, even the most ambitious study only obtains relatively small samples of behavior that may provide a somewhat distorted view of a person’s true characteristics. For example, your behavior during a “getting acquainted” conversation on a single given day inevitably will reflect a number of transient influences (e.g., level of stress, quality of sleep the previous night) that are idiosyncratic to that day.

No single method of assessing personality is perfect or infallible; each of the major methods has both strengths and limitations. By using a diversity of approaches, researchers can overcome the limitations of any single method and develop a more complete and integrative view of personality.

Honeymoon effect: The tendency for newly married individuals to rate their spouses in an unrealistically positive manner. It illustrates the very important role played by relationship satisfaction in ratings made by romantic partners: As marital satisfaction declines (i.e., when the “honeymoon is over”), this effect disappears.

Implicit motives: These are goals that are important to a person, but that they cannot consciously express. Because the individual cannot verbalize these goals directly, they cannot be easily assessed via self-report. However, some researchers think they can be measured using projective devices such as the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT). There is some debate whether implicit motives can be accurately measured by assessments.

Projective hypothesis: The theory that when people are confronted with ambiguous stimuli (that is, stimuli that can be interpreted in more than one way), their responses will be influenced by their unconscious thoughts, needs, wishes, and impulses. This, in turn, is based on the Freudian notion of projection, which is the idea that people attribute their own undesirable/unacceptable characteristics to other people or objects.

Reliability: The consistency of test scores across repeated assessments. For example, test-retest reliability examines the extent to which scores change over time.

Self-enhancement bias: The tendency for people to see and/or present themselves in an overly favorable way. This tendency can take two basic forms: defensiveness (when individuals actually believe they are better than they really are) and impression management (when people intentionally distort their responses to try to convince others that they are better than they really are).

Sibling contrast effect: The tendency of parents to use their perceptions of all of their children as a frame of reference for rating the characteristics of each of them. For example, suppose that a mother has three children; two of these children are very sociable and outgoing, whereas the third is relatively average in sociability. Because of operation of this effect, the mother will rate this third child as less sociable and outgoing than they actually are. More generally, this effect causes parents to exaggerate the true extent of differences between their children. This effect represents a specific manifestation of the more general reference group effect when applied to ratings made by parents.

Validity: Evidence related to the interpretation and use of test scores. A particularly important type of evidence is criterion validity, which involves the ability of a test to predict theoretically relevant outcomes. For example, a presumed measure of conscientiousness should be related to academic achievement (such as overall grade point average).

• Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2009). Predicting actual behavior from the explicit and implicit self-concept of personality.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97 , 533–548.
• Bagby, R. M., Parker, J. D. A., Taylor, G. J. (1994). The Twenty-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale: I. Item selection and cross-validation of the factor structure.  Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38 , 23–32.
• Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior?  Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2 , 396–403.
• Beer, A., & Watson, D. (2010). The effects of information and exposure on self-other agreement.  Journal of Research in Personality, 44 , 38–45.
• Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W, & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1980).  Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
• Exner, J. E. (2003).  The Rorschach: A comprehensive system  (4th ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
• Frank, L. K. (1939). Projective methods for the study of personality.  Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 8 , 389–413.
• Friedman, H. S., Kern, K. L., & Reynolds, C. A. (2010). Personality and health, subjective well-being, and longevity.  Journal of Personality, 78 , 179–215.
• Funder, D. C. (2012). Accurate personality judgment.  Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21 , 177–182.
• Funder, D. C., & Colvin, C. R. (1988). Friends and strangers: Acquaintanceship, agreement, and the accuracy of personality judgment.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55 , 149–158.
• Funder, D. C., & Dobroth, K. M. (1987). Differences between traits: Properties associated with interjudge agreement.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 , 409–418.
• Gamez, W., Chmielewski, M., Kotov, R., Ruggero, C., & Watson, D. (2011). Development of a measure of experiential avoidance: The Multidimensional Experiential Avoidance Questionnaire.  Psychological Assessment, 23 , 692–713.
• Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. C. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures.  Journal of Research in Personality, 40 , 84–96.
• Gosling, S. D., Ko, S. J., Mannarelli, T., & Morris, M. E. (2002). A room with a cue: Personality judgments based on offices and bedrooms.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 , 379–388.
• Gough, H. G. (1987).  California Psychological Inventory  [Administrator’s guide]. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
• Heine, S. J., Buchtel, E. E., & Norenzayan, A. (2008). What do cross-national comparisons of personality traits tell us? The case of conscientiousness.  Psychological Science, 19 , 309–313.
• Jackson, D. N. (1984).  Personality Research Form manual  (3rd ed.). Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press.
• John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.),  Handbook of personality: Theory and research  (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
• Kotov, R., Gamez, W., Schmidt, F., & Watson, D. (2010). Linking “big” personality traits to anxiety, depressive, and substance use disorders: A meta-analysis.  Psychological Bulletin, 136 , 768–821.
• Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2006). Further assessment of the HEXACO Personality Inventory: Two new facet scales and an observer report form.  Psychological Assessment, 18 , 182–191.
• Leising, D., Erbs, J., & Fritz, U. (2010). The letter of recommendation effect in informant ratings of personality.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98 , 668–682.
• Lilienfeld, S. O., Wood, J. M., & Garb, H. N. (2000). The scientific status of projective techniques.  Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1 , 27–66.
• Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory.  Psychological Reports, 3 , 635–694.
• McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and implicit motives differ?  Psychological Review, 96 , 690–702.
• McCrae, R. R. (1994). The counterpoint of personality assessment: Self-reports and observer ratings. Assessment, 1 , 159–172.
• McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., & Martin, T. A. (2005). The NEO-PI-3: A more readable Revised NEO Personality Inventory.  Journal of Personality Assessment, 84 , 261–270.
• McGregor, I., McAdams, D. P., & Little, B. R. (2006). Personal projects, life stories, and happiness: On being true to traits.  Journal of Research in Personality, 40 , 551–572.
• Mehl, M. R., Gosling, S. D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). Personality in its natural habitat: Manifestations and implicit folk theories of personality in daily life.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 , 862–877.
• Meyer, G. J., & Kurtz, J. E. (2006). Advancing personality assessment terminology: Time to retire “objective” and “projective” as personality test descriptors.  Journal of Personality Assessment, 87 , 223–225.
• Mihura, J. L., Meyer, G. J., Dumitrascu, N., & Bombel, G. (2012). The validity of individual Rorschach variables: Systematic Reviews and meta-analyses of the Comprehensive System.  Psychological Bulletin . (Advance online publication.) doi:10.1037/a0029406
• Mineka, S., Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1998). Comorbidity of anxiety and unipolar mood disorders.  Annual Review of Psychology, 49 , 377–412.
• Morgan, C. D., & Murray, H. A. (1935). A method for investigating fantasies.  The Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 34 , 389–406.
• Oh, I.-S., Wang, G., & Mount, M. K. (2011). Validity of observer ratings of the five-factor model of personality traits: A meta-analysis.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 , 762–773.
• Oltmanns, T. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2009). Person perception and personality pathology.  Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18 , 32–36.
• Patrick, C. J., Curtin, J. J., & Tellegen, A. (2002). Development and validation of a brief form of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire.  Psychological Assessment, 14 , 150–163.
• Paunonen, S. V., & LeBel, E. P. (2012). Socially desirable responding and its elusive effects on the validity of personality assessments.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103 , 158–175.
• Pinto, R., Rijsdijk, F., Frazier-Wood, A. C., Asherson, P., & Kuntsi, J. (2012). Bigger families fare better: A novel method to estimate rater contrast effects in parental ratings on ADHD symptoms.  Behavior Genetics, 42 , 875–885.
• Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance.  Psychological Bulletin, 135 , 322–338.
• Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes.  Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2 , 313–345.
• Rorschach, H. (1942) (Original work published 1921).  Psychodiagnostik [Psychodiagnostics] . Bern, Switzerland: Bircher.
• Rosenberg, M. (1965).  Society and the adolescent self-image . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Schultheiss, O. C. (2008). Implicit motives. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.),  Handbook of personality: Theory and research  (3rd ed.) (pp. 603–633). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
• Society for Personality Assessment. (2005). The status of the Rorschach in clinical and forensic practice: An official statement by the Board of Trustees of the Society for Personality Assessment.  Journal of Personality Assessment, 85 , 219–237.
• Spangler, W. D. (1992). Validity of questionnaire and TAT measures of need for achievement: Two meta-analyses.  Psychological Bulletin, 112 , 140–154.
• Vazire, S., & Carlson, E. N. (2011). Others sometimes know us better than we know ourselves.  Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20 , 104–108.
• Watson, D., & Humrichouse, J. (2006). Personality development in emerging adulthood: Integrating evidence from self- and spouse-ratings.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91 , 959–974.
• Watson, D., Hubbard, B., & Wiese, D. (2000). Self-other agreement in personality and affectivity: The role of acquaintanceship, trait visibility, and assumed similarity.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 , 546–558.
• Winter, D. G. (1998). Toward a science of personality psychology: David McClelland’s development of empirically derived TAT measures.  History of Psychology, 1 , 130–153.

This chapter is an edited version that is adapted from the NOBA Project as found here:

Watson, D. (2019). Personality assessment. In R. Biswas-Diener & E. Diener (Eds),  Noba textbook series: Psychology. Champaign, IL: DEF publishers. Retrieved from  http://noba.to/eac2pyv7

Grateful appreciation to the authors for making this an open use chapter.

Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike

The Balance of Personality Copyright © 2020 by Chris Allen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol
• PMC10031124

A scoping review on innovative methods for personality observation

Lucia luciana mosca.

1 SiPGI - Postgraduate School of Integrated Gestalt Psychotherapy, Torre Annunziata, Italy

Grazia Isabella Continisio

2 Department of Translational Medical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy

Natascia De Lucia

3 Department of Neurosciences and Reproductive and Odontostomatological Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy

Elena Gigante

Carmela guerriera.

4 Department of Psychology, University of Campania, Luigi Vanvitelli, Caserta, Italy

Nelson Mauro Maldonato

Enrico moretto, ottavio ragozzino, veronica rosa.

5 ASPICARSA (Association of Applied Scientific Research ASPIC), Rome, Italy

Chiara Scognamiglio

Roberta stanzione, daniela cantone, associated data.

Personality’s investigation has always been characterized as a central area of research for psychology, such that it was established in the 1920s as an autonomous scientific-disciplinary field. Identifying and observing the people’s typical ways of “being in the world” has made possible to define the predictability of a pattern of behavioral responses related both to the possession of distinct characteristics of the agent subject and to specific environmental situations. In the actual scientific landscape, there is a strand of research that makes a description of personality through methodologies and indicators not usually used by psychology, but scientifically validated through standardized procedures. Such studies seem to be significantly increasing and reflect the emerging need to have to consider the human being in his or her complexity, whose existential and personal dimensions can no longer be traced to classification systems that are divorced from the epochal reference.

In this review, attention is focused on highlighting publications in the literature that have included the use of unconventional methods in the study of nonpathological personality, based on the Big Five theoretical reference model. To better understand human nature, an alternative based on evolutionary and interpersonal theory is presented.

Online databases were used to identify papers published 2011–2022, from which we selected 18 publications from different resources, selected according to criteria established in advance and described in the text. A flow chart and a summary table of the articles consulted have been created.

The selected studies were grouped according to the particular method of investigation or description of personality used. Four broad thematic categories were identified: bodily and behavioral element; semantic analysis of the self-descriptions provided; integrated-type theoretical background; and use of machine learning methods. All articles refer to trait theory as the prevailing epistemological background.

This review is presented as an initial attempt to survey the production in the literature with respect to the topic and its main purpose was to highlight how the use of observational models based on aspects previously considered as scientifically uninformative (body, linguistic expression, environment) with respect to personality analysis proves to be a valuable resource for drawing up more complete personality profiles that are able to capture more of the complexity of the person. What has emerged is a rapidly expanding field of study.

Introduction

The personality’s investigation has always been characterized as a central field of research for psychology, such that it was established in the 1920s as an autonomous scientific-disciplinary field. Personality can be defined as the set of characteristics of the person, capable of producing congruent patterns of thinking, feeling and behaving and, in this sense, identifying and observing the people’s typical ways of “being in the world” ( Biswanger, 1973 ) allowed in the course of the development of psychological science, and still allows today, to define the predictability of a behavioral pattern responses’ related both to the possession of specific characteristics of the subject agent and to specific environmental situations. In this sense, therefore, psychological theories have clarified the extent to which personality is the result of the complex interaction between biological factors (temperament) and environmental factors (character). Cloninger et al. (1993) first identified this interactive dichotomy between the biological and situational element of personality, and later Kagan (2011) clarified that temperament should be considered not as a constituent principle of a single personality type, but rather as a predisposition that tends to develop toward multiple possible profiles. In the timeline of psychological science development, we find that Kagan’s conception was preceded by investigations by various researches aimed to identifying the existence of factors that could group the extreme variability of the personality’s elements within common classes. Such studies produced descriptions of “personality types,” that are characteristics ways in which people organize their mental, behavioral and relational functioning, which refer to the possession of specific personality traits. Trait is conceived as an inclination to act in a not directly manner or exclusively related to changing circumstances and environments, so it presupposes the existence of a stable and enduring tendency to experience and regulate emotions, to process information and take action. Trait Theory was conceived by Allport (1937) , who summarized, with this word, the existence of “personality fundamental units”, identified in about 4,000 of them, and distinguished into three types, cardinal central and secondary, according to their constituent characteristics. This theorization in the landscape of personality study was very important and stimulated the scientific interest of other researches who made subsequent modifications and reworkings to it, finally arriving at the theory of the “Big Five,” i.e., the theory of the five major personality factors that, in the actual psychology scientific landscape, is conceived as the one capable of explaining the greatest individual variability. This theory, elaborated subsequently by Costa and McCrae (1992) , emphasizes the individual dispositional tendencies, which are described by the five dimensions that decipher the person’s specific behavior according to the particular combination of them. Currently, such a reading model has become the almost unambiguous reference in the field of personality science as the discovery of its presence in many different cultures has led to the understanding that the Big Five are attributes proper to human nature. For this reason, all studies and research about personality, and the possible combination of characteristics useful in defining profiles of personality, use precisely the Big Five model as the epistemological theoretical background of reference. Within the vast panorama of these studies lies an innovative strand of scientific research that arrives at a description of personality by resorting to the use of methodologies, as well as indicators, so far not usually used by psychology even if scientifically validated through standardized procedures. Such studies seem to be significantly increasing, reflecting the emerging need to have to consider the human being in his or her complexity, whose existential and personal dimensions can no longer be traced to classification systems that are divorced from the epochal reference. In fact, a first set of identified writings affirms the possibility of studying and describing the personality of individuals precisely from the consideration of the modern ecosystem in which human behavior takes place, in which it is no longer possible to disregard the use of information technology devices and the communicative and interaction potential they offer, through the various social media available. In such studies, through sophisticated semantic analyzes, significance is given to the linguistic expressions used by users both on social networks to share their moods, activities and thoughts, and in self-descriptions, considered in this sense as reliable indicators of personality style. Alongside this, an additional large pool of scientific production focuses attention on the observation of the body and its movements in space and the possession of certain morphological or expressive features as typical and characteristic of certain personality patterns. Finally, those studies that used an integrated theoretical approach as an epistemological backdrop for the observation and description of personality were selected as the last set: the use of such an approach is what best captures the complexity of human beings ( Iennaco et al., 2019 ). From such studies, those using machine learning methods for personality research and assessment have been differentiated as a further considered category ( Sperandeo et al., 2019 ).

In this review, attention is focused on highlighting publications in the literature that have included the use of unconventional methods in the study of nonpathological personality, based on the Big Five theoretical reference model. The aim is to introduce a vision to understand personality in a broader way, taking into account indicators not usually included in standardized tests.

Search and retrieval

Following the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines ( Tricco et al., 2018 ), a scoping review of the literature was conducted in order to find articles on the topic published in peer-reviewed journals. It was decided to define a specific time frame, useful to focus on the most recent writings, in a period between January 2011 and January 2022. The surveys were conducted through two main search engines, such as PubMed and Google Scholar, choosing various keywords (listed in the Table 1 ), and the collected material from the two different repositories was then further examined to eliminate any duplicates and then unified into a single dataset.

Keyword list.

The eligibility and exclusion criteria are summarized in Table 2 .

Eligibility and exclusion criteria.

Article selection

The first phase of screening, carried out automatically by the system based on the keywords entered, resulted in the highlighting of more than 800 articles. In the next stage, all articles that, by title and abstract, seemed to fall within the objectives of the present work were extrapolated from that number. In this way, the number of selected articles was reduced to 200, and was equally distributed among the two independent researchers who participated in the selection process. From this initial number, after full text reading, 50 studies were distinguished, which, subjected to further skimming and based on the exclusion criteria listed above, were reduced to 36. Further analysis conducted later to identify those articles whose data were not useful to be processed according to the Prisma review method set the final number of included studies at 18.

The article selection process took into consideration the parameters developed by Ouzzani et al. (2016) . Conflicts between researchers were resolved through mutual confrontation, providing for the possibility of the involvement of a third researcher in case of a lack of agreement.

Assessment of methodological quality

The assessment of the methodological quality of the studies was not applied.

Data extraction and selection

The review process used the collaboration of several experts: one in psychiatry and complex systems modeling, two in process research in psychotherapy, and one in psychology specializing in machine learning.

Data charting process

The results are presented through tables, graphs, diagrams and narrative descriptions. The purpose of the tables, graphs and diagrams is to summarize the relevant data obtained, providing an overview of the various methods used.

Critical evaluation of individual sources of evidence

Prior to inclusion, a process of critical selection of the sources consulted was carried out. In particular, the parameter of objectivity was considered ( McMillan, 2001 ), i.e., the ability of the articles to highlight research methods and findings in the study of non-pathological personality through the use of unconventional methods of observation and assessment.

Summary measures

Not applicable for scoping reviews.

Risk of bias across studies

Additional analyzes, selection of sources of evidence.

The final number of papers evaluated as eligible and thus included in the review was 18. In the various consecutive stages of the review process, the use of exclusion criteria first removed all papers whose abstracts showed little congruence with the topic; book chapters, previous reviews on the same topic, editorials and opinion papers, articles focused on the diagnosis of personality disorders, research using conventional methods for studying personality, and articles written in a language other than English were also excluded.

This process is graphically described in Figure 1 .

Flow chart.

Characteristics of the sources of evidence

For each of the included studies, a summary was made of the type of settings, objective, sample, data analyzed, techniques used, and conclusions. In order to make this summary usable, a special table was constructed containing the items below and is given in full in the Appendix .

Results of individual sources of evidence

The studies selected for this review were grouped according to the particular method of investigation or description of personality used. Approximately four broad categories were thus identified: articles focused on the bodily and behavioral element; articles based on semantic analysis of the self-descriptions provided; articles referring the study of personality to an integrative theoretical background; and articles emphasizing the use of machine learning methods. All articles refer to trait theory as the prevailing epistemological background.

Analysis of the selected studies pertaining to the first category revealed the existence of a number of trends regarding the attribution of personality traits or personality analysis as a function of bodily elements. In a first article ( Hu et al., 2018 ) reviewed, the general disposition of people to form a consistent and reliable structure of trait considerations from body shapes was measured. It was thus scientifically proven how a numerous variety of personality traits are inferred from body shapes, and how these personality inferences are deeply related to the physical characteristics of the body shapes themselves ( Iennaco et al., 2020 ). Moreover, they reflect the nuanced personality characteristics related to the Big Five domains of extroversion, conscientiousness and agreeableness. In another article ( Berkovsky et al., 2019 ), on the other hand, the question of the possibility of delineating personality through the use of physiological responses to external stimuli was raised, on the assumption that they are not consciously controllable and thus as such can be defined as reliable indicators of emotional reactions attributable to personality traits. The research used images with affective valence and video stimuli, as well as eye-tracking data, and upon analysis of the results, the study found that seven personality traits (predicting an addition of two traits to those proposed by the Big Five model) were predictable with more than 90 percent accuracy. An additional article in this category focused on finding associations between facial morphology and personality traits. It was established that humans are able to perceive with a certain degree of accuracy certain personality traits from faces, even if only photographed. For example, facial symmetry is predictive of extroversion ( Pound et al., 2007 ), while the width-to-height ratio of the face has been found to be related to the presence of various traits, such as: dominance, commitment to achievement, deception, risk-taking, and aggression ( Carre and McCormick, 2008 ; Valentine et al., 2014 ). The study thus gathered new evidence validating the hypothesis that personality is related to facial appearance. The results specifically showed that real-life photographs taken in natural situations can predict personality traits through the use of computer vision algorithms. In particular, conscientiousness was found to be more easily recognized than the other four traits. Finally, an additional paper ( Kabbara et al., 2020 ), included in this category, starts with scientific evidence pertaining to the long-identified neural substrates underlying personality. The innovative contribution of the study started from the consideration that much of the understanding of personality-related differences in functional connectivity has always been studied through stationary analysis, which does not seem to be able to capture the complex dynamic properties of brain networks. In the article, however, it is hypothesized that the study of the dynamic properties of brain network reconfiguration over time may lead to new insights into the neural substrate of personality through the study on a millisecond time scale, of the dynamics of brain connectivity patterns, performed using electroencephalography (EEG) and magneto-encephalography (MEG).

An original article pertaining to the category of observing personality as a function of manifest behavior is that of Tekofsky et al. (2013) in which the potential offered for assessment by a particular type of behavior was investigated: playing video games. The specific research question in this case concerned the investigation about the possible correlation existing between gaming style and personality, and the authors performed a series of operations aimed at ensuring scientificity of the data. In fact, they significantly assessed personality data, through the Big Five questionnaire; quantified playing style, through the choice of a game whose statistics were accessible and descriptive data and that detailed it by making explicit the player’s choices and performance. Finally, the authors took into account recruiting a sufficient number of participants by marketing the research and creating a dedicated website to collect the results. Analysis of the collected data showed that in general, playing style is significantly correlated with personality, with many correlations reaching an effect size greater than 1. The correlations were broken down into three main items: the Unlock Score per Second playing variable was found to be strongly correlated with personality, especially with the Conscientiousness and Extroversion item; conscientiousness and speed of action correlated negatively as did work ethic with performance at the game.

As for the second group of articles, which includes those based on semantic analysis of self-descriptions provided in various modalities, first of all on social but also in generically produced texts, a fairly large scientific production was found starting from the consideration of the dissemination through short and simple messages of emotional states, thoughts and feelings by the millions of users of the global social network. Such messages constitute a rich source of data that, if scientifically analyzed, are able to provide substantial information about personality profiles. The first article ( Park et al., 2015 ) in fact investigates and evaluates the possibility of arriving at a description of personality based on the language used in social media. It starts from the consideration of previous studies carried out in this field based on the so-called “closed vocabulary” method ( Schwartz et al., 2013 ) that starts from lists of words grouped into categories, counting their frequencies and thus analyzing the messages written in social to predict users’ personality traits. As an alternative to this method, the authors describe the open vocabulary procedure in which the linguistic sample is defined by single, non-categorized words; by semantically connected phrases and groups of words; and, finally, by nonverbal symbols (e.g., emoticons, punctuation). This method has been shown to be better at describing personality types in a richer way, highlighting individual differences. The authors therefore proceed by questioning the ability of this procedure, called language-based assessments, to define itself as a new modality for personality assessment, offering itself as a viable alternative to self-report questionnaires. Following analysis of the results, they concluded that the method investigated possesses numerous advantages: it is quick and inexpensive, avoids some of the biases present in self-report questionnaires, and shows a good degree of agreement with the conclusions reached by such questionnaires. In addition, more accurate information can be achieved than that obtained from individual observer reports.

A similar study ( Fernandez et al., 2021 ) focuses on determining how social LinkedIn can convey accurate personality information. The study postulates that individuals through a variety of indicators have an interest in reporting their personality traits on the social, and from the analysis of the results, some 33 LinkedIn indicators were identified as being considered signals of personality traits. To cite some of them as examples it is reported that choosing to use an artistic photo as a background, being able to speak multiple languages, having taken part in artistic activities, or listing the creative skills possessed are defined as indicators of openness to experience; while possessing an up-to-date profile indicating the most recent work experience and a short resume are considered to be indicators of conscientiousness. This study thus demonstrated the veracity of personality signals inferred through LinkedIn, situating this assertion within the frame of reference given by signal theory ( Bangerter et al., 2012 ), which considers that the more accurate the information, the more it requires signals that are costly (in that they take a lot of time or effort to emit) and difficult to alter.

The study by Neuman and Cohen (2014) likewise is based on a new semantic vector approach ( Turney and Pantel, 2010 ) to personality assessment and, through the construction of vectors representing personality dimensions and disorders, measures the similarity between these and texts written by people. Vector semantic models indicate that the meaning of a word, and the concept it represents, can be identified by analyzing the words that appear in correlation with the target word in a given context. The approach proposes representing the relevant words in a sentence as a vector in a semantic space and measuring the distance between the vector composed of these words and the vector of words representing a personality trait. The closer two vectors are the more similar, the sentence is to the personality vector and, therefore, this gives confidence to the hypothesis that the sentence represents the trait. Thus, the degree to which the trait is considered to be represented in the text is defined by the similarity score obtained. Following their analysis, the authors concluded that the results show agreement with the meta-analysis that examined the relationships between the five major factors and personality. Although this agreement provided empirical support for the approach, it was not considered by them as a definitive validation but only as a first step in providing empirical support to reach the minimum level of validity.

With reference to personality analysis based on trait detection, described by the Big Five, from nonverbal auditory and visual cues extracted from brief (30–120 s) self-presentations, Batrinca et al. (2011) investigate the effectiveness of some 29 traits possessed by such cues. The conceptual assumption guiding their investigation is that of “thin slices” ( Ambady and Rosenthal, 1992 ) which refers to the amount of short expressive behaviors on the basis of which humans generate very accurate judgments about the personality characteristics of an individual or group. The results of the study showed that the easiest traits to be automatically detected during self-presentation were found to be conscientiousness and emotional stability, and the authors provide explanation for the phenomenon by stating that the former trait turns out to be related to involvement in task-related behavior while the latter to the emotional reactions it elicits; however, this is not the case for the dispositions of agreeableness and extroversion, which are not activated entirely. Although limited, the results the study arrives at seem to take a first step toward the development of automatic systems to aid in personality detection. The penultimate macro group of articles refers to the idea of the need to use an integrated type of theoretical background that expands the study perspective traditionally related to the topic by introducing the consideration of previously unexamined factors. In the first of them ( Dunlop, 2015 ) the author, Dunlop, aimed to extend the perspective hitherto used by personality psychology with respect to the perception of personality variation within the different social roles held by a person. The contextualized approach as currently considered, according to the author, while interesting shows itself to have a limitation because it is based, almost exclusively, on the assessment of personality traits, which are certainly configured as important components but nevertheless appear to be inadequately representative of all aspects of the person. The article therefore first delves into the nature of such relevant personality traits and argues that just as the recognition of three conceptual levels, namely traits, goals and life narratives, have proved useful within general theories of personality, similarly they could serve a similar function in contextualized approaches to personality by broadening their perspectives of observation. The author illustrates scientific evidence in particular of the predictive capacity of context-specific goals and narratives by adopting a relational meta-theory in the study of personality, with a significant improvement in the understanding of personality through combining context assessment with a multilevel conception of personality. Highlighting the very concept of contextualized personality is necessary because the measurement of personality characteristics cannot be conceived outside the inevitable influences that the environments, in which these characteristics are assessed, exert on it.

McAbee and Connelly (2016) start from the general consideration of how the study of personality, historically, has always been affected by a sharp contrast between the element of accuracy and error in the judgments made about it. The authors have referred both to research that supports the thesis of accuracy and thus stability of judgments over time ( Roberts and DelVecchio, 2000 ) and to studies that have instead identified consistent errors of judgment ( Malle, 2006 ) such that in the 1980s the real existence and concreteness of the construct of personality traits was questioned. They state that while the consensus that is established among researchers turns out to increase as a function of the greater accuracy of trait judgments the same phenomenon does not occur, in a mirror-image fashion, when errors of perception are recorded that, instead, make the consensus more discrepant: while much is known about the conditions under which evaluators agree on personality trait judgments less is known about the outcomes associated with disagreement. The reached conclusion of the authors is that experimental designs with many evaluators are hardly used in the study of trait etiology and outcomes to distinguish between shared and unique perceptions, and for the purpose of separating these perceptions, they propose the Trait-Reputation-Identity (TRI) model in which they illustrate the tools of consensus and uniqueness. Specifically, in the model, Trait is considered a general factor that captures the common variance in self-reports and observers; Identity, on the other hand, captures the variance in self-reports not shared with observers; finally, Reputation captures the residual variance in observers’ reports, resulting from both errors in perceptions and information relevant to the trait but not available per se . In the authors’ intentions, then, the Trait-Reputation-Identity Model can offer a unified approach in the study of individual differences in personality traits, unique self-perceptions and personal reputation. As part of the expansion of personality observation modalities based on trait theory Roberts (2018) in his article proposes a revision as an integrative function of his own Socio-genomic model of personality traits that originally started from three essential assumptions: the acquisition, thanks to advances in the field of biological research, of a dynamic notion of DNA through which it became clear that a person’s fate is not written in the “code” in an ineluctable way and that DNA expression can be modified as a function of lived experiences; the importance of states and the relationship between traits, states, environments and biological factors and finally the acquisition of the importance of considering, in the study of personality traits, also observations inferred from the behavioral characteristics of non-human species since the assumption that the genome is conserved across species could explain the nature of some human personality traits as a function of animal personality traits. As in the original theorization, within the revised version, states and traits are found to be correlated and environments are considered to be at the origin of variations in states but the new model introduces, in addition to these, epigenetic mechanisms that determine flexible and elastic systems, which are at the origin of traits.

So, traits are based on DNA (or fixed factors), flexible systems, elastic systems, and state fluctuations. Epigenetic systems determine the change in traits; changes in epigenetic systems, on the other hand, lead to changes in states that are, however, only apparent since they are mediated by the change in traits. According to the author, the current system of studying and observing personality (tests used by professionals) cannot accurately capture the percentage of “influence” of flexible, elastic systems, fixed factors and state fluctuations in trait configuration because it assumes that a typical personality measure must capture the fixed aspect of personality that would determine future outcomes. But this is not a tenable assumption according to socio-genomic conceptualization, and in the author’s intentions the identification of flexible and elastic systems would imply concrete patterns of change, and lack of change, within phenotypes such as personality traits.

A further study selected for the topic, starts from the consideration of the need for a new assessment model. Wright et al. (2019) substantiates the assertion by clarifying how psychological assessment grounds personality patterns on nomothetic principles thus rooting itself in patterns of individual differences and to ascertain an individual’s position relative to others grounds the comparison on one or more dimensions of functioning through normative distributions. This mode, however, produces an incomplete picture of the processes affecting an individual, for two main reasons: because the same model is applied to all in a static form, underestimating the dynamic element inherent in behavior, and because personality structure is not entirely reducible to the set of behavioral elements, but must include the associations existing between them and environmental characteristics. To this end, the author then introduces group iterative multiple model estimation (GIMME) ( Gates and Molenaar, 2012 ), which is useful for conducting multivariate search of the pattern of associations between intensively sampled data. GIMME is based on a unified structural equation modeling framework that provides estimates for both lagged and contemporaneous effects and is a link between two useful methods for analyzing time series data: vector autoregression (VAR) and structural equation modeling. In conclusion, the authors state that GIMME offers interesting study options in dynamic personality assessment while cross-sectional personality assessments fail to capture the dynamics that are supposed to originate traits. The aim of the study, however, was not to reach definitive conclusions about general personality processes; rather, to highlight how the model could be used to study the heterogeneity of processes of individuals with the same trait or symptom profiles.

Another article focused on the need to rethink the personality assessment procedure in a broader key is that of Mayer (2020) in which the author, reflects on the large amount of data that the clinician collects in the course of the assessment, using and mastering technical languages of different nature, which need useful integrations in order to be able to answer the question of diagnosis. To organize all the data, clarify potential gaps in them, and reduce possible confusion resulting from the necessary merging of multiple theoretical backgrounds of reference, integrative methodologies are often used across theoretical approaches ( Blais and Hopwood, 2017 ) in order to keep the focus on the person rather than on the controversies of the field. The author therefore presents an extension of the Personality Systems Framework for Assessment (PSF-A) originally introduced by Mayer (1993 , 1998) to support the assessment process by organizing information about an individual’s background and demographics and personality functions and allowing clinicians to focus on their characterization. The part on organizing contextual information is based on the main areas affecting personality and provides a method for recording general medical information, physical living environments, situations experienced, and social group memberships.

The functional type part, on the other hand, provides a system for recording data about a person’s internal mental life and performance in the broad areas of energy development, knowledge guidance, action implementation, and executive management. The scheme thus proposes a broad view of the client by capturing contextual and personal elements of the client; organizing the technical languages of psychiatric symptoms, personality traits and test scores into a single chart based on personality areas; and identifying personality areas not adequately assessed.

One article included in the selection that is proposed as a real disarticulation of the epistemological perspective outlined so far, based on the enrichment of trait theory, is that of Hogan and Foster (2016) who propose a total revision in a critical key of the study approach traditionally adopted by personality psychology. In that, in fact, the two focuses on which personality science rests are questioned and then an epistemological alternative to them is proposed. The article starts with a strong critique about clinical psychology as centering almost exclusively on psychopathology. In this way, according to the authors, it steers the reading and diagnosis of personality predominantly in a direction they believe is wrong, centered on the generalization that all people are neurotic and that the essential problem is to overcome neurosis. This predominantly psychopathological reading of the complexity of the human being is highly reductive, as it does not allow for an understanding of the many psychological and personality nuances and thus a broader framing of the subject and his or her problems in real life. The same highly critical approach is used for trait theory whose self-referentiality the authors are interested in showing. They in fact, following a bold thought process, assert that the theory seems to be geared, with its procedures and epistemology, to the generalization that all people have traits and that the most important element is to discover these traits, likening this process to that for which a person would undergo a genetic analysis to discover that he or she has genes. They also refute the assertion that traits are true neuropsychological entities by asserting their unfoundedness, and finally they point out that trait theory confuses prediction with explanation, in that if one identifies consistent patterns of behavior by calling them traits, it is not logically possible to then explain these same patterns in terms of traits. To understand human nature, therefore, the authors present an alternative based on evolutionary and interpersonal theory. Interpersonal theory asserts that social interaction is what allows coherence and logic to be given to what happens in life: all the contents of an individual’s consciousness are the result of interactions (past and present) and these guide action in the world. How people behave with others provides the data for interpersonal theory.

Finally, in the macro category of articles highlighting the use of machine learning methods, four studies were counted in which the use of devices is made for automatic recognition of personality traits ( Alam and Riccardi, 2014 ) from the analysis of language, visual expressions or textual content with the goal of constructing classifiers through a supervised machine learning approach, which learns patterns from the data. In the first one ( Sperandeo et al., 2019 ), the authors analyze verbal and nonverbal behavior through an approach directed at automatically recognizing personality traits using a collection of video blogs (vlogs) selected from Youtube, in which a person speaks while looking at the camera showing face and shoulders and vloggers illustrate a product or tell about an event. Through Amazon Mechanical Turk (an Amazon suite that enables computer programmers to coordinate human intelligences to perform tasks that computers cannot), the annotation of the vloggers’ personality traits was defined, along with their automatic transcription; audiovisual features included in the data set were analyzed along with lexical, psycholinguistic, and emotional features extracted from the transcript. From the observation and analysis of the data obtained, the authors derived the assumption that the performance of each trait varies for different defined feature sets, so the same feature set or architecture may not be effective for the prediction and analysis of all personality traits.

Another paper ( Youyou et al., 2015 ) included in this category focuses on comparing the accuracy of personality judgments made by humans and artificial intelligence ( Kosinski et al., 2013 ) using a sample of 86,220 volunteers who responded to a personality questionnaire. The premise of this study starts from the consideration of the fact that although it is still believed that accurate personality perceptions are possible only due to the capabilities of the human brain, current developments in machine learning models have shown that computer models are also capable of making appreciable personality judgments by analyzing and evaluating digital records of human behavior. The basic theoretical assumption used by the authors in the study was that of the realist approach, which assumes that personality traits represent real individual characteristics and measures the accuracy of personality judgments through the criteria of agreement between selves, between judges, and through external validity. Personality judgments obtained from the computer were based on Likes posted on Facebook, of which their predictive ability of both personality and other psychological traits has previously been demonstrated ( Sperandeo et al., 2021 ). Judgments from humans, on the other hand, were obtained from the Facebook contacts of participants, who were asked to describe them using a 10-item version of the IPIP personality measure. Three types of final considerations emerged from the data: computer predictions based on a generic digital judgment (“Facebook likes”) are more accurate than those obtained from participants’ Facebook friends; computer models exhibit greater agreement among judges; and computer-generated personality judgments have greater external validity in cases of substance abuse, political attitudes, and physical health. Therefore, the authors conclude by stating that, because of their research findings, personality can be adequately predicted and described by computer systems.

Personality assessments have historically been conducted from scientific materials, tests and questionnaires, specially created and standardized according to the population under investigation, aimed at highlighting the presence of certain specific patterns of behavioral modes of response to the environment. However, thanks to research and observational studies, it has become common knowledge that personality manifests itself in many subtle ways that often, said standardized materials fail to capture. Thanks to the “big data” leaning, researchers have focused their attention on highlighting points of observation tangential to traditional ones that can offer assessments of personality from broader cues and thus capture more of the complexity of the person. This review is presented as an initial attempt to survey the production in the literature with respect to the topic and had as its main purpose to highlight how the use of observation models based on aspects previously considered scientifically uninformative (body, linguistic expression, environment) with respect to personality analysis proves to be a valuable resource for drawing up personality profiles that are more comprehensive and capable of capturing more of the complexity of the person. What has emerged is a rapidly expanding field of study because of the need to continue to identify rich and in-depth elements of interpretation that will enable us to grasp the continuous evolutions that human personality undergoes, depending on the ever-changing and uncertain conditions of the ecosystem in which life is structured and the increasingly complex challenges it poses.

Author contributions

LM, GC, NL, EG, CG, and NM designed the research design. EM, OR, and VR contributed to the selection of sources. CS, RS, and DC contributed to proofreading. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1112287/full#supplementary-material

• Alam F., Riccardi G. (2014). Predicting Personality Traits Using Multimodal Information . In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM Multi-media on Workshop on Computational Personality Recognition, pp. 15–18.
• Allport G. W.. (1937). Personalità: Un'interpretazione Psicologica . New York: Holt, Rinehart e Winston. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ambady N., Rosenthal R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: a meta-analysis . Psychol. Bull. 111 , 256–274. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.111.2.256 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bangerter A., Roulin N., König C. J. (2012). Personnel selection as a signaling game . J. Appl. Psychol. 97 , 719–738. doi: 10.1037/a0026078, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Batrinca L. M., Mana N., Lepri B., Pianesi F., Sebe N.. (2011). Please, tell me about Yourself: Automatic Personality Assessment Using Short Self-presentations . In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, pp. 255–262.
• Berkovsky S., Taib R., Koprinska I., Wang E., Zeng Y., Li J., et al.. (2019). Detecting Personality Traits Using Eye-tracking Data . In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1-12.
• Biswanger L. (1973). Essere nel mondo [to be in the world] . Roma: Astrolabio, 23–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blais M. A., Hopwood C. J. (2017). Model-based approaches for teaching and practicing personality assessment . J. Pers. Assess. 99 , 136–145. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2016.1195393, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carre J. M., McCormick C. M. (2008). In your face: facial metrics predict aggressive behaviour in the laboratory and in varsity and professional hockey players . Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 275 , 2651–2656. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.0873, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cloninger C. R., Svrakic D. M., Przybeck T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament ad character . Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 50 , 975–990. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1993.01820240059008 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Costa P. T., Jr., McCrae R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic . Personal. Individ. Differ. 13 , 653–665. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-I [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dunlop W. L. (2015). Contextualized personality, beyond traits . Eur. J. Personal. 29 , 310–325. doi: 10.1002/per.1995 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fernandez S., Stöcklin M., Terrier L., Kim S. (2021). Using available signals on linked in for personality assessment . J. Res. Pers. 93 :104122. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2021.104122 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gates K. M., Molenaar P. C. M. (2012). Group search algorithm recovers effective connectivity maps for individuals in homogeneous and heterogeneous samples . Neuroimage 63 , 310–319. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.06.026, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hogan R., Foster J. (2016). Rethinking personality . Int. J. Pers. Psychol. 2 , 37–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hu Y., Parde C. J., Hill M. Q., Mahmood N., O’Toole A. J. (2018). First impressions of personality traits from body shapes . Psychol. Sci. 29 , 1969–1983. doi: 10.1177/0956797618799300, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Iennaco D., Mosca L. L., Longobardi T., Nascivera N., Di Sarno A. D., Moretto E., et al.. (2019). Personalità: neuroscienze, psicopatologia e psicoterapia: visione attuale e prospettive future negli studi di ricerca . Phenom. J. 1 , 47–54. doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-5093-5_50 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Iennaco D., Sperandeo R., Mosca L. L., Messina M., Moretto E., Cioffi V., et al.. (2020). “ From “mind and body” to “mind in body”: a research approach for a description of personality as a functional unit of thoughts, behaviours and affective states ” in Neural Approaches to Dynamics of Signal Exchanges (Singapore: Springer; ), 443–452. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kabbara A., Paban V., Weill A., Modolo J., Hassan M. (2020). Brain network dynamics correlate with personality traits . Brain Connect. 10 , 108–120. doi: 10.1089/brain.2019.0723, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kagan J. (2011). La Trama Della Vita: Come Geni, Cultura, Tempo e Destino Determinano il Nostro Temperamento . Turin: Bollati Boringhieri. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kosinski M., Stillwell D., Graepel T. (2013). Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 110 , 5802–5805. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1218772110, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Malle B. F. (2006). The actor-observer asymmetry in attribution: a (surprising) meta-analysis . Psychol. Bull. 132 , 895–919. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.895, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayer J. D. (1993). A system-topics framework for the study of per-sonality . Imagin. Cogn. Pers. 13 , 99–123. doi: 10.2190/0B5Y-6M4L-7939-FJD8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayer J. D. (1998). A systems framework for the field of personality . Psychol. Inq. 9 , 118–144. doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli0902_10 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayer J. D. (2020). An integrated approach to personality assessment based on the personality systems framework . J. Pers. Assess. 102 , 443–456. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2018.1555539, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McAbee S. T., Connelly B. S. (2016). A multi-rater framework for studying personality: the trait-reputation-identity model . Psychol. Rev. 123 , 569–591. doi: 10.1037/rev0000035, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McMillan V.. (2001). Writing Papers in the Biological Sciences . Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s. [ Google Scholar ]
• Neuman Y., Cohen Y. (2014). A vectorial semantics approach to personality assessment . Sci. Rep. 4 , 1–6. doi: 10.1038/srep04761 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ouzzani M., Hammady H., Fedorowicz Z., Elmagarmid A. (2016). Rayyan–a web and mobile app for systematic reviews . Syst. Rev. 5 , 1–10. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Park G., Schwartz H. A., Eichstaedt J. C., Kern M. L., Kosinski M., Stillwell D. J., et al.. (2015). Automatic personality assessment through social media language . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 108 , 934–952. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000020, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pound N., Penton-Voak I. S., Brown W. M. (2007). Facial symmetry is positively associated with self-reported extraversion . Pers. Individ. Dif. 43 , 1572–1582. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.014 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts B. W. (2018). A revised sociogenomic model of personality traits . J. Pers. 86 , 23–35. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12323, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts B. W., DelVecchio W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: a quantitative review of longitudinal studies . Psychol. Bull. 126 , 3–25. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.3, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwartz H. A., Eichstaedt J. C., Kern M. L., Dziurzynski L., Ramones S. M., Agrawal M., et al.. (2013). Personality, gender, and age in the language of social media: the open vocabulary approach . PLoS One 8 :e73791. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073791, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sperandeo R., Cioffi V., Mosca L., Muzii B., Maldonato N. (2021). Phenomenological experience personality profile: a test to identify the affective dimensions of psychopathology in the context of precision psychotherapy . Eur. Psychiatry 64 , S455–S456. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sperandeo R., Di Sarno A. D., Longobardi T., Iennaco D., Mosca L. L., Maldonato N. M.. (2019). Toward a Technological Oriented Assessment in Psychology: A Proposal for the Use of Contactless Devices for Heart Rate Variability and Facial Emotion Recognition in Psychological Diagnosis . In PSYCHOBIT.
• Sperandeo R., Mosca L. L., Alfano Y. M., Cioffi V., Di Sarno A. D., Galchenko A., et al.. (2019). Complexity in the Narration of the Self a New Theoretical and Methodological Perspective of Diagnosis in Psychopathology Based on the Computational Method . In 2019 10th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications. IEEE, pp. 445–450.
• Tekofsky S., Van Den Herik J., Spronck P., Plaat A. (2013). Psyops: Personality Assessment through Gaming Behavior . In Proceedings of the International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games.
• Tricco A. C., Lillie E., Zarin W., O'Brien K. K., Colquhoun H., Levac D., et al.. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation . Ann. Intern. Med. 169 , 467–473. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Turney P. D., Pantel P. (2010). From frequency to meaning: vector space models of semantics . J. Artif. Intell. Res. 37 , 141–188. doi: 10.1613/jair.2934 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Valentine K. A., Li N. P., Penke L., Perrett D. I. (2014). Judging a man by the width of his face: the role of facial ratios and dominance in mate choice at speed-dating events . Psychol. Sci. 25 , 806–811. doi: 10.1177/0956797613511823, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wright A. G., Gates K. M., Arizmendi C., Lane S. T., Woods W. C., Edershile E. A. (2019). Focusing personality assessment on the person: modeling general, shared, and person specific processes in personality and psychopathology . Psychol. Assess. 31 , 502–515. doi: 10.1037/pas0000617, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Youyou W., Kosinski M., Stillwell D. (2015). Computer-based personality judgments are more accurate than those made by humans . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112 , 1036–1040. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1418680112, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.

Personality Assessment Paradigms and Methods

DOI link for Personality Assessment Paradigms and Methods

Get Citation

This book is an update of Paradigms of Personality Assessment by Jerry Wiggins (2003, Guilford), a landmark volume in the personality assessment literature. The first half of Wiggins (2003) described five major paradigms: psychodynamic (as exemplified by the Rorschach and TAT), narrative (interview data), interpersonal (circumplex instruments), multivariate (five-factor instruments), and empirical (MMPI). In the second half of the book, expert representatives of each paradigm interpreted test data from the same patient, Madeline.　

In this follow-up, personality experts describe innovations in each of the major paradigms articulated by Wiggins since the time of his book, including the advancement of therapeutic assessment, validation of the Rorschach Performance Assessment System, development of a multimethod battery for integrated interpersonal assessment, publication of the Restructured Form of the MMPI-2, and integration of multivariate Five-Factor Model instruments with personality disorder diagnosis. These innovations are highlighted in a reassessment of Madeline 17 years later.　

This book, which provides a rich demonstration of trans-paradigmatic multimethod assessment by leading scholars in the personality assessment field in the context of one of the most interesting and thorough case studies in the history of clinical assessment, will be a useful resource for students, researchers, and practicing clinicians.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter chapter 1 | 12  pages, madeline g. and five assessment paradigms two decades on, chapter chapter 2 | 22  pages, therapeutic assessment of madeline g, chapter chapter 3 | 77  pages, a psychodynamic perspective on madeline g, chapter chapter 4 | 20  pages, a contemporary interpersonal reassessment of madeline g, chapter chapter 5 | 13  pages, madeline g. and the five-factor model, chapter chapter 6 | 38  pages, the empirical paradigm and madeline g, chapter chapter 7 | 41  pages, communicating the assessment findings to madeline g, chapter chapter 8 | 8  pages, past, present, and future in personality assessment.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Taylor & Francis Online
• Taylor & Francis Group
• Students/Researchers
• Librarians/Institutions

Connect with us

Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG © 2024 Informa UK Limited

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 1: Introduction to Personality

Part 2: methods of studying personality.

In all types of research, we need to consider two closely related concepts:  hypothesis vs. theory .  A hypothesis can loosely be defined as an educated guess about some relationship or circumstance that we have observed, and the purpose of the hypothesis is to explain what we have experienced and to provide a starting point for further research.  When a set of observations seem to come together, especially as the result of testing our hypotheses, we might then propose a theory to bring those observations together. However, a theory is not necessarily our endpoint, since the theory itself may generate new hypotheses and more research.  In this way, all scientific endeavors continue to develop, expand, clarify, change, whatever the case may be, over time. As a result, we have many different personality theories, since different theorists have viewed the human condition differently, and they have also used different techniques to study personality.

A variety of methods have been used to study personality.  Much of the early research was based on clinical observations, which were not done according to strict experimental methods.  Today, ethical restrictions on the types of research we can conduct with people limit our ability to re-evaluate many of those classic studies.  So we are left with a field that is rich in theory, but somewhat poor in the validation of those theories. Of course some personality theorists have approached personality in a more scientific manner, or at least they have tried, but that has limited the questions they have been able to ask.  Since a detailed analysis of experimental psychology and research design is beyond the scope of this book, we will only cover this topic briefly (though it may come up again within individual chapters).

Case Studies

Many of the best-known personality theorists relied on case studies to develop their theories.  Indeed, it was after seeing a number of patients with seemingly impossible neurological complaints that Freud began to seek an explanation of psychological disorders.  Basically, the case study approach relies on a detailed analysis of interesting and unique individuals. Because these individuals are unique, the primary criticism of the case study approach is that its results may not generalize to other people.  Of greater concern is the possibility that early theorists chose to report only those cases that seemed to support their theories, or perhaps they only recognized those elements of a patient’s personality that fit their theory? Another problem, as mentioned above, is that two different theorists might view the same cases in very different ways.  For example, since Carl Rogers worked initially with children, he found it difficult to accept Freud’s suggestions that even children were motivated primarily by sexual and aggressive urges. Consequently, Rogers sought a more positive view of personality development, which led to the establishment of the humanistic perspective. Thus, the case study approach can lead to very different conclusions depending on one’s own perspective while conducting research.  In other words, it can easily be more subjective than objective, and psychologists who focus on our field as a scientific discipline always strive for more objective research.

Correlational Designs

When conducting correlational research, psychologists examine the relationships that exist between variables, but they do not control those variables.  The measure that is typically used is the correlation coefficient , which can range from –1.0 to 0.0 to +1.0.  A value close to zero suggests that there is no relationship between the variables, whereas a value closer to –1.0 or +1.0 suggests a strong relationship, with the direction of the relationship determining whether the value is positive or negative.  It is important to remember that the strength of the correlation is determined by how far the correlation coefficient is from zero, not whether it is positive or negative. For example, we would most likely find a positive correlation between the number of hours you study for a test and the number of correct answers you get (i.e., the more you study, the more questions you get right on the test).  On the other hand, the exact same data will give us a negative correlation if we compare the number of hours you study to the number of questions you get wrong (i.e., the more you study, the fewer questions you get wrong). So the way in which you ask the question can determine whether you have a positive or negative correlation, but it should not affect the strength of the relationship.

Since the investigator does not control the variables in correlational research, it is not possible to determine whether or not one variable causes the relationship.  In the example used above, it certainly seems that studying more would lead to getting a better grade on a test. But consider another example: can money buy happiness?  There is some evidence that wealthy people are happier than the average person, and that people in wealthy countries are happier than those in poorer countries. But does the money affect happiness?  Certainly a million dollars in cash wouldn’t help much if you were stranded on a desert island, so what can it do for you at home? People with money can live in nicer, safer communities, they have access to better health care (so they may feel better physically), they may have more time to spend with their family and friends, and so in many ways their lives might be different.  We can also look at the correlation the other way around; maybe happy people get more money. If you ran a company, and were going to hire or promote someone, wouldn’t you want to find someone who is friendly and outgoing? Wouldn’t you look for someone who other people will enjoy working with? So, maybe happy people do find it easier to be successful financially. Either way, we simply can’t be sure about which variable influences the other, or even if they influence each other at all.  In order to do that, we must pursue experimental research.

Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs

The experimental design is usually preferred within psychology, as with any other science.  The goal is to control every aspect of the experiment and then manipulate a single variable, thus allowing us to attribute the results to that single manipulation.  As a result, experiments allow us to make cause-and-effect statements about the relationships between the variables.

A simple experiment begins with defining the independent variable , the factor that will be manipulated, and the dependent variable , the factor that will be measured.  Ideally, we then select our subjects in a random fashion, and assign them randomly to a control group and an experimental group .  The experimental group is then exposed to the independent variable, whereas the control group is not.  If we have successfully controlled all other variables through random selection of subjects (i.e., all subjects in a specified population have an equal chance of being selected for the study) and random assignment to the control and experimental groups (so that hopefully each group has an equal representation of gender, race, age, intelligence, personal habits, etc.), we should see a difference in the dependent variable that was caused by the independent variable.

Unlike the natural sciences, however, we can seldom control human behavior in the precise ways that true experimental designs require.  For example, if we want to study the effects of prenatal exposure to cocaine on personality development, we certainly cannot ask pregnant women to use cocaine.  Unfortunately, there are pregnant women who abuse cocaine and other illegal drugs. Therefore, we can try to identify those women, and subsequently study the development of their children.  Since a variety of other factors led these women to abuse illegal drugs, we lose the control that is desired in an experiment. Such studies are called quasi-experimental, because they are set up as if we did an experiment, and can be analyzed in similar ways.  The quasi-experimental approach has many applications, and can provide valuable information not available otherwise, so long as the investigators keep in mind the limitations of the technique (for the classic discussion of this design see Campbell & Stanley, 1963).

Cross-Cultural Approaches to the Study of Personality

Cross-cultural approaches to studying personality do not really represent a different type of research, but rather an approach to research that does not assume all people are influenced equally by the same factors.  More importantly, cross-cultural psychologists recognize that seemingly common factors may, in reality, be quite different when viewed by people of very different cultures. The most obvious problem that arises when considering these issues is the potential difference between cross-cultural and multicultural research.  Cross-cultural research is based on a comparison of cultures; two well-known categorizations are Eastern vs. Western perspectives and the somewhat related topic of individualistic vs. collectivistic cultures. However, a multicultural approach tells us that we must consider the true complexity of the human race. What is “Eastern?” Is it Asia, China, Japan, does it include India, and what about Muslim groups of people?  Should Buddhism be viewed as an Eastern perspective or a religious perspective? The list goes on and on, because there are so many different cultures in the world. And finally, is it practical to really try coming up with a theory of personality that can encompass all the different groups of people throughout the world? Only by pursuing an understanding of different cultures can psychology truly be considered a global science, and that pursuit has only just begun.  Since we have a long way to go, the future is ripe for new students to pursue careers in psychology and the study of personality.

Supplemental Materials

Personality Research Methods

In this video [9:11], personality research methods are explored.  Advantages and disadvantages of each method is discussed, as well as exciting new developments in the field.

Source: https://youtu.be/lSab-wtpVnQ

Text: Kelland, M. (2017). Personality Theory. OER Commons. Retrieved October 28, 2019, from https://www.oercommons.org/authoring/22859-personality-theory.  Licensed under CC-BY-4.0. Supplemental Material: Personality research methods. Society for Personality and Social Psychology.  Retrieved from https://youtu.be/lSab-wtpVnQ. YouTube Standard License.

Application of Personality Theory-Assessing Personality

As in the section above on research methods, an extensive discussion of personality assessment is beyond the scope of this textbook.  However, this is such an important issue that we will look at it briefly here, and then will take a closer look in some of the chapters throughout the rest of the book.

Personality assessment most commonly occurs in a clinical setting, when an individual is seeking help for some problem, whether it is an adjustment disorder or a potential mental illness.  Assessing personality goes beyond this singular role, however. Certainly a clinical psychologist would be using personality assessment in order to understand a patient’s symptoms, provide a diagnosis (if appropriate), and recommend a preferred course of therapy.  Similarly, school psychologists use assessment to identify any possible learning disorders and/or adjustment issues as they pertain to the educational environment. But other psychologists use personality assessment for a variety of reasons as well. Industrial/organizational psychologists use personality assessment to identify preferred candidates for particular jobs, career counselors use these assessments in order to provide valid recommendations regarding the choice of a career path, and research psychologists use assessment in their ongoing efforts to correlate certain personality types to observable behavior or other measures.  Thus, the assessment tools used to describe and/or understand personality have a wide range of potential applications.

Reliability, Validity, and Standardization

A particular personality assessment is of little value if it has no reliability or validity and if it is not presented in a standardized format. Reliability refers to the likelihood that a test will give essentially the same result on different occasions, or that two versions of the same test will give similar results. Validity refers to whether a test actually measures what it purports to measure. Standardization refers to the manner in which a test is given, which must be the same for every person receiving the test if there is to be any value in comparing the results among different people.

Determining the reliability and validity of a test can be a long and complicated process, involving a variety of statistical methods to confirm the results. During this process the psychologist(s) developing the test will also typically establish norms. Norms are consistent ways in which particular groups score on a test. For example, on measures of aggressiveness, the “normal” level for men may be quite different than the “normal” level for women.  Standardization is quite a bit simpler to establish, since the test can include precise instructions dictating the manner in which it is to be given.

Assessing Personality with Objective Tests

The most famous self-report inventory is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (or MMPI ).  The MMPI is also probably the most widely used psychological test in the world, and it has stood the test of time (it is currently in its second version, a 1989 revision of the 1943 original).  The current version consists of 567 true-false questions, which address not only normal personality traits, but psychopathology and the accuracy of the test-taker as well. The test has several built in “lie” scales in case a person were trying to fake a mental illness (e.g., if they were trying to fake an insanity defense to avoid responsibility for a crime) or minimize any symptoms they may actually be experiencing. The questions themselves range from rather simple (e.g., I enjoy drama.) to rather strange (e.g., I am a prophet of God.), but when put all together they provide a highly valid assessment that can easily be scored by computer (hence the popularity of the test, for both reasons).  NOTE: Those are not actual questions from the MMPI, but they are based on real questions. The MMPI is an empirically based instrument. That is, interpretations are based on the pattern of responding obtained by various psychiatric samples. Since the standard MMPI was developed for adults and is rather lengthy, an abbreviated version was developed for use with adolescents: the MMPI-A.

A number of alternatives to the MMPI have been developed.  The California Psychological Inventory has been available almost as long as the MMPI and, more recently, the Personality Assessment Inventory has become popular.  Another important test is Millon’s Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (the MCMI), which was developed in accordance with Millon’s own theories on personality development and personality disorders.  The MCMI was designed with certain advantages in mind, including being relatively short compared to the MMPI and being connected with a specific clinical theory.  However, since the test was designed specifically to distinguish amongst psychiatric populations, it is not as useful when assessing “normal” individuals (Keller et al., 1990; Groth-Marnat, 2003).

Behavioral assessment and thought sampling are techniques designed to gain an appreciation of what an individual actually does and/or thinks on a day-to-day or moment-to-moment basis.  In each case, observers are trained to make precise observations of an individual at precise times. This provides a statistical sample of the individual’s actual behavior and/or thoughts over time.  Naturally, the only person who can record an individual’s thoughts is that person himself or herself, but as long as they are carefully informed of the procedure and are fully cooperating, the technique works fine.  When applied correctly, the great value of these techniques is that they are truly objective, in other words, they record actual behaviors and actual thoughts.

Assessing Personality with Projective Tests

The two most famous projective tests are the Rorschach Inkblot Technique and the Thematic Apperception Test (or TAT ).  Both tests involve the presentation of ambiguous stimuli in an attempt to draw out responses from a patient, responses reflecting impulses and/or thoughts that the patient may not even be aware of (i.e., the patient projects their own thoughts and feelings onto the ambiguous stimuli, even if those thoughts and feelings are subconscious).

The Rorschach Inkblots are just that, inkblots on a piece of paper that can look like most anything.  An individual being tested is first asked to say what each inkblot looks like, and then they are asked to explain how they saw what they identified.  The answer to a single inkblot is not particularly informative, since any one inkblot may remind the person of some particular thing. However, as the patient goes through all 10 inkblots, trends should become apparent to the psychologist that reflect the dominant issues affecting the personality of the patient (again, even if those issues are subconscious and not available to the conscious awareness of the patient).  Initially, the Rorschach was reviewed unfavorably and then ignored. Rorschach became depressed, and died only 9 months after the test was published. Eventually, however; the test became more and more popular, and today is certainly one of the most widely recognized psychological tests. However, studies comparing the Rorschach and the MMPI have shown the latter to be far more valid. In an effort to improve both the reliability and validity of the Rorschach technique, there is now a standardized scoring system.

The TAT is similar to the Rorschach, except that it involves actual pictures of people (although they are still very ambiguous drawings) and the patient is asked to tell a story about the people in the picture.  There is no objective scoring system for the TAT, so reliability and validity remain arguable, and the test is more famous than popular as an assessment tool. However, it has been shown to have high validity for certain specific research studies, such as studies on the need for achievement, and continues to serve a function in clinical formulations.

Clinical Interviews

As valuable and informative as the well-established psychological tests are, there is certain vital information that simply cannot be addressed with most tests, such as: a person’s appearance, their attitude, facial expressions, ability to communicate with another person, etc.  In addition, tests often lead to further questions, or the need for clarification or explanation. In order to address such issues, both in general and in greater detail, clinical interviews are an essential part of the overall personality assessment. Although the results of an interview are somewhat subjective, when viewed in the context of the psychologist’s clinical experience, along with the results of an assessment tool, they provide psychologists with a much more complete understanding of the person whom they are evaluating.

Inkblot (Rorschach) and TAT (Thematic Apperception Tests)-Projective Tests

This video [5:48] explains the Rorschach and Thematic Apperception Tests and describes how they are used in the field of personality psychology.

Source: https://youtu.be/HJVwA6_sqdQ

Personality Assessment | Psychology

This video [3:56] explores different types of projective and objective tests used to assess personality, including the MMPI, Rorschach Inkblot and Thematic Apperception Test.

Source: https://youtu.be/5tsbb-B8Rs0

Personality Assessment and Judgement

This video [7:24] reviews various ways for assessing and making judgments of personality, as well as methods for increasing the accuracy in personality judgments.

Source: https://youtu.be/5Tr3dMWDsdc

Text: Kelland, M. (2017). Personality Theory. OER Commons. Retrieved October 28, 2019, from https://www.oercommons.org/authoring/22859-personality-theory.  Licensed under CC-BY-4.0.

Practical Psychology.  (2019, July 1). Inkblot (Rorschach) and TAT(Thematic Apperception Tests)-Projective Tests.[Video File]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/HJVwA6_sqdQ.

Course Hero.  (2019, March 15).  Personality Assessment | Psychology.  [Video File]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/5tsbb-B8Rs0.

Society for Personality and Social Psychology.  (2018, June 6). Personality assessment and judgement.  [Video File]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/5Tr3dMWDsdc.

Cultural Studies in the Field of Psychology

In the first section we briefly examined the concern of many psychologists that the field of psychology has been slow to embrace the value of cross-cultural research (see Lee et al., 1999; Sue, 1999; Triandis & Suh, 2002).  This concern is by no means new. In 1936, Ralph Linton wrote that “different societies seem to show differences in the relative frequency of occurrence of the various psychological types” (pg. 484), and in 1973, Robert LeVine suggested that “this is a moment at which even those who are skeptical about the value of culture and personality study might consider stretching their curiosity in this direction” (pg. ix).  Throughout this textbook we will examine a number of theorists who emphasized studying cultural differences as a significant part of their careers and, often, their personality theories as well.

However, it remains true that cross-cultural studies in psychology have only recently moved closer to the mainstream of psychological research and clinical practice.  As of 2002, the American Psychological Association has “Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training, Research, Practice, and Organizational Change for Psychologists.”  To cite just a few examples of the range of current interest in cross-cultural psychology, we now have a Dictionary of Multicultural Psychology (Hall, 2005) and books on the relationships between culture, mental illness, and counseling (Axelson, 1999; Castillo, 1997), as well as on the relationships between race, class, and the social and personal development of women (Jordan, 1997b; Pack-Brown, Whittington-Clark, & Parker, 1998).  There are also major new texts on African American psychology (Belgrave & Allison, 2006) and racism, prejudice, and discrimination in America (Miller & Garran, 2008; Whitley & Kite, 2006).

The fact that studying cross-cultural factors in personality has always been present in the careers and theories of certain individuals, while not becoming a mainstream focus of attention, is more than just a historical curiosity.  By emphasizing biological factors (i.e., genetics), Freud’s theory did not allow for cultural differences. Behavioral theorists emphasized environmental factors, a seemingly cultural approach, but they did not allow themselves to address factors beyond immediate scientific control.  Thus, they defined with great precision the role of reinforcement, punishment, discriminative stimuli, etc., while not allowing for the richness of cognition and cultural experiences. Likewise, cognitive theorists clung to the scientific approach of the behaviorists, rather than embracing the potential of sociocultural perspectives.  In other words, because strict Freudian theorists, as well as behavioral and cognitive theorists, believed that their theories applied to all people equally, they typically chose not to address differences between people. Thus, those who wished to bring sociocultural perspectives on the development of personality into the field of personality theory faced a degree of direct opposition.  And yet, their perseverance is now being fulfilled.

In this section we will briefly examine some of the issues facing personality psychologists who wish to examine personality development in a sociocultural context.  The United States, Canada, and Western Europe represent only about one tenth of the world’s population. Ralph Linton, a renowned anthropologist with an interest in cultural influences on personality (see Linton, 1945), also edited a book entitled Most of the World: The Peoples of Africa, Latin America, and the East Today (Linton, 1949).  Thus, it is essential that we consider the influence of different cultures around the world if we are going to claim that we have really examined human personality in all its variations.

Since the 1990s, a number of general books on psychology and culture have been available (e.g., Brislin, 2000; Lonner & Malpass, 1994; Matsumoto, 1994, 1997; Matsumoto & Juang, 2004; Okun, Fried, & Okun, 1999; Price & Crapo, 2002; Segall et al., 1990).  Although all of these books address topics such as the “self” and person-perception, and other various aspects of personality, only a few of them devote an actual chapter or section to the topic of personality itself (Matsumoto & Juang, 2004; Price & Crapo, 2002; Segall et al., 1990), and in each case the topics are fairly specific.  There is, however; some older literature on the relationships between culture, society, and personality. We will examine that research in the second part of this section. First, let us examine some of the general principles of incorporating cross-cultural perspectives into the study of personality.

The Challenges of Cultural Research

The first problem faced by those who are interested in the study of culture and personality is the question:  What exactly is to be studied? At the most basic level, there are two types of research. Cross-cultural research typically refers to either parallel studies being conducted in different cultures, or similar concepts being studied in different cultures.  In contrast, intercultural research is the study of individuals of different cultures interacting with one another (Brislin, 2000; Matsumoto & Juang, 2004; Segall et al., 1990).  As you will see in later chapters, some personality theorists consider interpersonal relationships to be the only true domain for studying individual personality.  While most of the research done in psychology has been cross-cultural, as the world becomes more and more of a global community the opportunity for, and importance of, intercultural research is rapidly expanding.

Another fundamental problem with the study of culture is our attention to it, or rather, the lack of attention we pay to something that is so deeply ingrained in our daily lives.  Richard Brislin suggests the following exercise: write down three answers for someone from a different culture who asks “What should I know about your culture so that we can understand each other better?” (pg. 10; Brislin, 2000).  Because we simply take our cultural influences for granted, it proves quite difficult for us to think that they need to be identified or explained. For example, freedom of speech is a cherished right in America. Consequently, we often speak our minds.  If I am upset about some new college policy, I might say very negative things about the administration of our college, even about particular administrators. It does not mean I intend to be disrespectful, or that I dislike those individuals, or that I won’t say positive things about them when I agree with the next new policy.  It is simply an expression of one of the great freedoms in our society: the right to speak out. However, someone from a different culture, particularly a collectivist culture, might be shocked at my apparent disrespect toward my “superiors.”

The next important issue is the difference between emic and etic tasks or behaviors.  Simply put, emic tasks are those that are familiar to the members of a given culture, whereas etic tasks are common to all cultures.  In an elegantly simple, yet revealing study, Irwin, Schafer, & Feiden (1974) demonstrated these phenomena in two cultures:  American undergraduates and Mano rice farmers (from Liberia). The American college students were consistently better at performing the Wisconsin Card Sort, a well-known psychological test measuring cognitive reasoning skills, which relies on geometric shapes and color.  The Mano farmers, however; were consistently better at sorting different categories of rice. Thus, the ability to sort items into categories appears to be an etic task (most likely common to all humans, regardless of culture), whereas the more specific abilities to sort by geometry and color (common to American college students) or type of rice grain (common to Mano farmers in Liberia) is an emic task that requires familiarity.  Thus, if we made a judgment about the Mano farmers’ cognitive abilities based on the Wisconsin Card Sort, we would clearly be making a mistake in comparing them to Americans, due to the unfamiliarity of the particular task.

Another important aspect of cross-cultural research, which may involve applying our understanding of etics and emics, is the issue of equivalence.  Is a concept being studied actually equivalent in different cultures?  In other words, does a concept mean the same thing in different cultures; is the comparison valid?  For example, an etic related to intelligence is the ability to solve problems. So how might we compare different cultural groups?  Would the speed with which they solve a problem make sense as a measure of intelligence? Such an answer would be emic, and therefore valid, in America (where we typically value independence and competition).  However, among the Baganda of Uganda, slow and careful thought is the emic. Among the Chi-Chewa of Zambia, the emic is responsibility to the community, i.e., solving the problem in order to best get along with other people.  Thus, the speed at which people solve problems is conceptually equivalent, since it is the way in which people in each culture identify those individuals who are considered intelligent (Brislin, 2000). However, we cannot compare the actual speed of reporting a solution to others, as this is viewed quite differently in each culture.

One particular type of equivalence that raises a very interesting problem is that of translation equivalence.  Psychologists often want to use tests developed in their own language with people of a different culture who speak a different language.  Translating a test from one language to another can be a difficult task. The best way to assess translation equivalence is through back translation.  In this procedure, one person translates the test, or survey, into the foreign language, and then a different person translates the foreign language test back into the original language.  The original test can then be compared to the back translated test to see how closely they are worded. Ideally they would be identical, but this is seldom the case. To give you a simple example, when I was in graduate school, we had a student from Taiwan join our research group.  One day I asked her to translate my last name, Kelland, into a Chinese character. When she had done that, I asked her how she would translate that particular Chinese character into English for someone who was not Chinese. She translated the character as Kwang. Despite the first letter, I hardly consider Kwang to be a reasonable translation of Kelland, but she didn’t seem to think of this as much of a problem (perhaps revealing another cultural difference!).  When the process of back translation is used successfully, which may involve working back and forth with the translations, it has the effect of decentering the test from the original language.  Specifically, that means that the test should be free of any culturally emic references or aspects that interfere with the translation equivalence of the different versions of the test (Brislin, 2000; Matsumoto & Juang, 2004).

While the list of issues pertaining to cross-cultural research goes on, let’s consider just two more specific issues: cultural flexibility and cultural response sets.  Cultural flexibility refers to how individuals are willing to change, or adapt, in situations in which they know there are cultural differences.  For example, American businesspeople can stand about 15 minutes of small talk before getting down to business. Their Japanese counterparts, in contrast, consider it important to get to know their business partners, and they are comfortable with hours of conversation about a variety of topics.  This would, of course, be an important consideration for anyone studying the relationship between individual personality and success in business situations in this intercultural setting. Cultural response sets refer to how a given culture typically responds.  If a given culture is more reserved, and they are asked to rate the importance of some value in comparison to how a more open culture rates that value, a difference in the rating may reflect the cultural difference in responding, rather than the degree to which people in each culture value the variable being measured (Brislin, 2000; Matsumoto & Juang, 2004).

Finally, in light of these challenges, it may be particularly important to conduct cross-cultural validation studies.  Rather than testing hypotheses about specific cultural differences, cross-cultural validation studies are used to examine whether a psychological construct that was identified in one culture is meaningful and equivalent in another culture (Brislin, 2000; Matsumoto & Juang, 2004).  For example, as we will see later in the reading, Erik Erikson did not feel confident in proposing his eight stages of development (the psychosocial crises) until he had confirmed his observations in two separate Native American tribes. He was able to gain the trust of these groups, and thus able to closely observe their child-rearing practices, thanks to the anthropologists who introduced him to the tribes they had been studying for a long time.

Anthropologists have done much more for psychology than merely introducing some psychologists to cultural issues and unique cultural groups.  Some of them have had their own interests in personality. Many anthropologists, as well as some psychologists, have relied on ethnographies to report detailed information on the customs, rituals, traditions, beliefs, and the general way of daily life of a given group.  They typically immerse themselves in the culture, living for an extended period of time with the group being studied (this helps get past the anxiety of being observed or any lack of cultural flexibility).  Comparing the ethnographies of different groups can help guide cross-cultural psychologists in determining the likelihood that their cross-cultural studies are valid (Matsumoto & Juang, 2004; Segall et al., 1990).

Personality and Culture

This video [7:42] explores the following three concepts:  Conceptualization of personality across cultures; Cross-cultural research informing our understanding of personality; Future research in culture and personality.

Source: https://youtu.be/YC7LxSSrJYE

Kelland, M. (2017). Personality Theory. OER Commons. Retrieved October 28, 2019, from https://www.oercommons.org/authoring/22859-personality-theory.  Licensed under CC-BY-4.0.

Society for Personality and Social Psychology.  (2018, June 6). Personality and culture. [Video File].  Retrieved from https://youtu.be/YC7LxSSrJYE. Standard YouTube License.

PSY321 Course Text: Theories of Personality Copyright © by The American Women's College Psychology Department and Michelle McGrath is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

What Is a Case Study?

Weighing the pros and cons of this method of research

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Cara Lustik is a fact-checker and copywriter.

Verywell / Colleen Tighe

• Pros and Cons

What Types of Case Studies Are Out There?

Where do you find data for a case study, how do i write a psychology case study.

A case study is an in-depth study of one person, group, or event. In a case study, nearly every aspect of the subject's life and history is analyzed to seek patterns and causes of behavior. Case studies can be used in many different fields, including psychology, medicine, education, anthropology, political science, and social work.

The point of a case study is to learn as much as possible about an individual or group so that the information can be generalized to many others. Unfortunately, case studies tend to be highly subjective, and it is sometimes difficult to generalize results to a larger population.

While case studies focus on a single individual or group, they follow a format similar to other types of psychology writing. If you are writing a case study, we got you—here are some rules of APA format to reference.  

At a Glance

A case study, or an in-depth study of a person, group, or event, can be a useful research tool when used wisely. In many cases, case studies are best used in situations where it would be difficult or impossible for you to conduct an experiment. They are helpful for looking at unique situations and allow researchers to gather a lot of˜ information about a specific individual or group of people. However, it's important to be cautious of any bias we draw from them as they are highly subjective.

What Are the Benefits and Limitations of Case Studies?

A case study can have its strengths and weaknesses. Researchers must consider these pros and cons before deciding if this type of study is appropriate for their needs.

One of the greatest advantages of a case study is that it allows researchers to investigate things that are often difficult or impossible to replicate in a lab. Some other benefits of a case study:

• Allows researchers to capture information on the 'how,' 'what,' and 'why,' of something that's implemented
• Gives researchers the chance to collect information on why one strategy might be chosen over another
• Permits researchers to develop hypotheses that can be explored in experimental research

On the other hand, a case study can have some drawbacks:

• It cannot necessarily be generalized to the larger population
• Cannot demonstrate cause and effect
• It may not be scientifically rigorous
• It can lead to bias

Researchers may choose to perform a case study if they want to explore a unique or recently discovered phenomenon. Through their insights, researchers develop additional ideas and study questions that might be explored in future studies.

It's important to remember that the insights from case studies cannot be used to determine cause-and-effect relationships between variables. However, case studies may be used to develop hypotheses that can then be addressed in experimental research.

Case Study Examples

There have been a number of notable case studies in the history of psychology. Much of  Freud's work and theories were developed through individual case studies. Some great examples of case studies in psychology include:

• Anna O : Anna O. was a pseudonym of a woman named Bertha Pappenheim, a patient of a physician named Josef Breuer. While she was never a patient of Freud's, Freud and Breuer discussed her case extensively. The woman was experiencing symptoms of a condition that was then known as hysteria and found that talking about her problems helped relieve her symptoms. Her case played an important part in the development of talk therapy as an approach to mental health treatment.
• Phineas Gage : Phineas Gage was a railroad employee who experienced a terrible accident in which an explosion sent a metal rod through his skull, damaging important portions of his brain. Gage recovered from his accident but was left with serious changes in both personality and behavior.
• Genie : Genie was a young girl subjected to horrific abuse and isolation. The case study of Genie allowed researchers to study whether language learning was possible, even after missing critical periods for language development. Her case also served as an example of how scientific research may interfere with treatment and lead to further abuse of vulnerable individuals.

Such cases demonstrate how case research can be used to study things that researchers could not replicate in experimental settings. In Genie's case, her horrific abuse denied her the opportunity to learn a language at critical points in her development.

This is clearly not something researchers could ethically replicate, but conducting a case study on Genie allowed researchers to study phenomena that are otherwise impossible to reproduce.

There are a few different types of case studies that psychologists and other researchers might use:

• Collective case studies : These involve studying a group of individuals. Researchers might study a group of people in a certain setting or look at an entire community. For example, psychologists might explore how access to resources in a community has affected the collective mental well-being of those who live there.
• Descriptive case studies : These involve starting with a descriptive theory. The subjects are then observed, and the information gathered is compared to the pre-existing theory.
• Explanatory case studies : These   are often used to do causal investigations. In other words, researchers are interested in looking at factors that may have caused certain things to occur.
• Exploratory case studies : These are sometimes used as a prelude to further, more in-depth research. This allows researchers to gather more information before developing their research questions and hypotheses .
• Instrumental case studies : These occur when the individual or group allows researchers to understand more than what is initially obvious to observers.
• Intrinsic case studies : This type of case study is when the researcher has a personal interest in the case. Jean Piaget's observations of his own children are good examples of how an intrinsic case study can contribute to the development of a psychological theory.

The three main case study types often used are intrinsic, instrumental, and collective. Intrinsic case studies are useful for learning about unique cases. Instrumental case studies help look at an individual to learn more about a broader issue. A collective case study can be useful for looking at several cases simultaneously.

The type of case study that psychology researchers use depends on the unique characteristics of the situation and the case itself.

There are a number of different sources and methods that researchers can use to gather information about an individual or group. Six major sources that have been identified by researchers are:

• Archival records : Census records, survey records, and name lists are examples of archival records.
• Direct observation : This strategy involves observing the subject, often in a natural setting . While an individual observer is sometimes used, it is more common to utilize a group of observers.
• Documents : Letters, newspaper articles, administrative records, etc., are the types of documents often used as sources.
• Interviews : Interviews are one of the most important methods for gathering information in case studies. An interview can involve structured survey questions or more open-ended questions.
• Participant observation : When the researcher serves as a participant in events and observes the actions and outcomes, it is called participant observation.
• Physical artifacts : Tools, objects, instruments, and other artifacts are often observed during a direct observation of the subject.

If you have been directed to write a case study for a psychology course, be sure to check with your instructor for any specific guidelines you need to follow. If you are writing your case study for a professional publication, check with the publisher for their specific guidelines for submitting a case study.

Here is a general outline of what should be included in a case study.

Section 1: A Case History

This section will have the following structure and content:

Background information : The first section of your paper will present your client's background. Include factors such as age, gender, work, health status, family mental health history, family and social relationships, drug and alcohol history, life difficulties, goals, and coping skills and weaknesses.

Description of the presenting problem : In the next section of your case study, you will describe the problem or symptoms that the client presented with.

Describe any physical, emotional, or sensory symptoms reported by the client. Thoughts, feelings, and perceptions related to the symptoms should also be noted. Any screening or diagnostic assessments that are used should also be described in detail and all scores reported.

Your diagnosis : Provide your diagnosis and give the appropriate Diagnostic and Statistical Manual code. Explain how you reached your diagnosis, how the client's symptoms fit the diagnostic criteria for the disorder(s), or any possible difficulties in reaching a diagnosis.

Section 2: Treatment Plan

This portion of the paper will address the chosen treatment for the condition. This might also include the theoretical basis for the chosen treatment or any other evidence that might exist to support why this approach was chosen.

• Cognitive behavioral approach : Explain how a cognitive behavioral therapist would approach treatment. Offer background information on cognitive behavioral therapy and describe the treatment sessions, client response, and outcome of this type of treatment. Make note of any difficulties or successes encountered by your client during treatment.
• Humanistic approach : Describe a humanistic approach that could be used to treat your client, such as client-centered therapy . Provide information on the type of treatment you chose, the client's reaction to the treatment, and the end result of this approach. Explain why the treatment was successful or unsuccessful.
• Psychoanalytic approach : Describe how a psychoanalytic therapist would view the client's problem. Provide some background on the psychoanalytic approach and cite relevant references. Explain how psychoanalytic therapy would be used to treat the client, how the client would respond to therapy, and the effectiveness of this treatment approach.
• Pharmacological approach : If treatment primarily involves the use of medications, explain which medications were used and why. Provide background on the effectiveness of these medications and how monotherapy may compare with an approach that combines medications with therapy or other treatments.

This section of a case study should also include information about the treatment goals, process, and outcomes.

When you are writing a case study, you should also include a section where you discuss the case study itself, including the strengths and limitiations of the study. You should note how the findings of your case study might support previous research. 

In your discussion section, you should also describe some of the implications of your case study. What ideas or findings might require further exploration? How might researchers go about exploring some of these questions in additional studies?

Need More Tips?

Here are a few additional pointers to keep in mind when formatting your case study:

• Never refer to the subject of your case study as "the client." Instead, use their name or a pseudonym.
• Read examples of case studies to gain an idea about the style and format.
• Remember to use APA format when citing references .

Crowe S, Cresswell K, Robertson A, Huby G, Avery A, Sheikh A. The case study approach .  BMC Med Res Methodol . 2011;11:100.

Crowe S, Cresswell K, Robertson A, Huby G, Avery A, Sheikh A. The case study approach . BMC Med Res Methodol . 2011 Jun 27;11:100. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-100

Gagnon, Yves-Chantal.  The Case Study as Research Method: A Practical Handbook . Canada, Chicago Review Press Incorporated DBA Independent Pub Group, 2010.

Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods . United States, SAGE Publications, 2017.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Maryland: University Press of America, Inc.     |     |     |     |       |     |     |     |          Browse Content Personality Assessment University of Notre Dame This module provides a basic overview to the assessment of personality. It discusses objective personality tests (based on both self-report and informant ratings), projective and implicit tests, and behavioral/performance measures. It describes the basic features of each method, as well as reviewing the strengths, weaknesses, and overall validity of each approach. Measurement Objective tests Personality Projective tests Learning Objectives Appreciate the diversity of methods that are used to measure personality characteristics. Understand the logic, strengths and weaknesses of each approach. Gain a better sense of the overall validity and range of applications of personality tests. Introduction Personality is the field within psychology that studies the thoughts, feelings, behaviors, goals, and interests of normal individuals. It therefore covers a very wide range of important psychological characteristics. Moreover, different theoretical models have generated very different strategies for measuring these characteristics. For example, humanistically oriented models argue that people have clear, well-defined goals and are actively striving to achieve them ( McGregor, McAdams, & Little, 2006 ). It, therefore, makes sense to ask them directly about themselves and their goals. In contrast, psychodynamically oriented theories propose that people lack insight into their feelings and motives, such that their behavior is influenced by processes that operate outside of their awareness (e.g., McClelland, Koestner, & Weinberger, 1989; Meyer & Kurtz, 2006). Given that people are unaware of these processes, it does not make sense to ask directly about them. One, therefore, needs to adopt an entirely different approach to identify these nonconscious factors. Not surprisingly, researchers have adopted a wide range of approaches to measure important personality characteristics. The most widely used strategies will be summarized in the following sections. Objective Tests Objective tests ( Loevinger, 1957 ; Meyer & Kurtz, 2006 ) represent the most familiar and widely used approach to assessing personality. Objective tests involve administering a standard set of items, each of which is answered using a limited set of response options (e.g., true or false; strongly disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, strongly agree). Responses to these items then are scored in a standardized, predetermined way. For example, self-ratings on items assessing talkativeness, assertiveness, sociability, adventurousness, and energy can be summed up to create an overall score on the personality trait of extraversion. It must be emphasized that the term “objective” refers to the method that is used to score a person’s responses, rather than to the responses themselves. As noted by Meyer and Kurtz ( 2006 , p. 233), “What is objective about such a procedure is that the psychologist administering the test does not need to rely on judgment to classify or interpret the test-taker’s response; the intended response is clearly indicated and scored according to a pre-existing key.” In fact, as we will see, a person’s test responses may be highly subjective and can be influenced by a number of different rating biases. Basic Types of Objective Tests Self-report measures. Objective personality tests can be further subdivided into two basic types. The first type—which easily is the most widely used in modern personality research—asks people to describe themselves. This approach offers two key advantages. First, self-raters have access to an unparalleled wealth of information: After all, who knows more about you than you yourself? In particular, self-raters have direct access to their own thoughts, feelings, and motives, which may not be readily available to others ( Oh, Wang, & Mount, 2011 ; Watson, Hubbard, & Weise, 2000 ). Second, asking people to describe themselves is the simplest, easiest, and most cost-effective approach to assessing personality. Countless studies, for instance, have involved administering self-report measures to college students, who are provided some relatively simple incentive (e.g., extra course credit) to participate. The items included in self-report measures may consist of single words (e.g., assertive ), short phrases (e.g., am full of energy ), or complete sentences (e.g., I like to spend time with others ). Table 1 presents a sample self-report measure assessing the general traits comprising the influential five-factor model (FFM) of personality: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness ( John & Srivastava, 1999 ; McCrae, Costa, & Martin, 2005 ). The sentences shown in Table 1 are modified versions of items included in the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) ( Goldberg et al., 2006 ), which is a rich source of personality-related content in the public domain (for more information about IPIP, go to: http://ipip.ori.org/). Self-report personality tests show impressive validity in relation to a wide range of important outcomes. For example, self-ratings of conscientiousness are significant predictors of both overall academic performance (e.g., cumulative grade point average; Poropat, 2009 ) and job performance ( Oh, Wang, and Mount, 2011 ). Roberts, Kuncel, Shiner, Caspi, and Goldberg ( 2007 ) reported that self-rated personality predicted occupational attainment, divorce, and mortality. Similarly, Friedman, Kern, and Reynolds ( 2010 ) showed that personality ratings collected early in life were related to happiness/well-being, physical health, and mortality risk assessed several decades later. Finally, self-reported personality has important and pervasive links to psychopathology. Most notably, self-ratings of neuroticism are associated with a wide array of clinical syndromes, including anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, substance use disorders, somatoform disorders, eating disorders, personality and conduct disorders, and schizophrenia/schizotypy ( Kotov, Gamez, Schmidt, & Watson, 2010 ; Mineka, Watson, & Clark, 1998 ). At the same time, however, it is clear that this method is limited in a number of ways. First, raters may be motivated to present themselves in an overly favorable, socially desirable way ( Paunonen & LeBel, 2012 ). This is a particular concern in “ high-stakes testing ,” that is, situations in which test scores are used to make important decisions about individuals (e.g., when applying for a job). Second, personality ratings reflect a self-enhancement bias ( Vazire & Carlson, 2011 ); in other words, people are motivated to ignore (or at least downplay) some of their less desirable characteristics and to focus instead on their more positive attributes. Third, self-ratings are subject to the reference group effect ( Heine, Buchtel, & Norenzayan, 2008 ); that is, we base our self-perceptions, in part, on how we compare to others in our sociocultural reference group. For instance, if you tend to work harder than most of your friends, you will see yourself as someone who is relatively conscientious, even if you are not particularly conscientious in any absolute sense. Informant ratings Another approach is to ask someone who knows a person well to describe his or her personality characteristics. In the case of children or adolescents, the informant is most likely to be a parent or teacher. In studies of older participants, informants may be friends, roommates, dating partners, spouses, children, or bosses ( Oh et al., 2011 ; Vazire & Carlson, 2011 ; Watson et al., 2000 ). Generally speaking, informant ratings are similar in format to self-ratings. As was the case with self-report, items may consist of single words, short phrases, or complete sentences. Indeed, many popular instruments include parallel self- and informant-rating versions, and it often is relatively easy to convert a self-report measure so that it can be used to obtain informant ratings. Table 2 illustrates how the self-report instrument shown in Table 1 can be converted to obtain spouse-ratings (in this case, having a husband describe the personality characteristics of his wife). Informant ratings are particularly valuable when self-ratings are impossible to collect (e.g., when studying young children or cognitively impaired adults) or when their validity is suspect (e.g., as noted earlier, people may not be entirely honest in high-stakes testing situations). They also may be combined with self-ratings of the same characteristics to produce more reliable and valid measures of these attributes ( McCrae, 1994 ). Informant ratings offer several advantages in comparison to other approaches to assessing personality. A well-acquainted informant presumably has had the opportunity to observe large samples of behavior in the person he or she is rating. Moreover, these judgments presumably are not subject to the types of defensiveness that potentially can distort self-ratings ( Vazire & Carlson, 2011 ). Indeed, informants typically have strong incentives for being accurate in their judgments. As Funder and Dobroth ( 1987 , p. 409), put it, “Evaluations of the people in our social environment are central to our decisions about who to befriend and avoid, trust and distrust, hire and fire, and so on.” Informant personality ratings have demonstrated a level of validity in relation to important life outcomes that is comparable to that discussed earlier for self-ratings. Indeed, they outperform self-ratings in certain circumstances, particularly when the assessed traits are highly evaluative in nature (e.g., intelligence, charm, creativity; see Vazire & Carlson, 2011 ). For example, Oh et al. ( 2011 ) found that informant ratings were more strongly related to job performance than were self-ratings. Similarly, Oltmanns and Turkheimer ( 2009 ) summarized evidence indicating that informant ratings of Air Force cadets predicted early, involuntary discharge from the military better than self-ratings. Nevertheless, informant ratings also are subject to certain problems and limitations. One general issue is the level of relevant information that is available to the rater ( Funder, 2012 ). For instance, even under the best of circumstances, informants lack full access to the thoughts, feelings, and motives of the person they are rating. This problem is magnified when the informant does not know the person particularly well and/or only sees him or her in a limited range of situations ( Funder, 2012 ; Beer & Watson, 2010 ). Informant ratings also are subject to some of the same response biases noted earlier for self-ratings. For instance, they are not immune to the reference group effect. Indeed, it is well-established that parent ratings often are subject to a sibling contrast effect , such that parents exaggerate the true magnitude of differences between their children ( Pinto, Rijsdijk, Frazier-Wood, Asherson, & Kuntsi, 2012 ). Furthermore, in many studies, individuals are allowed to nominate (or even recruit) the informants who will rate them. Because of this, it most often is the case that informants (who, as noted earlier, may be friends, relatives, or romantic partners) like the people they are rating. This, in turn, means that informants may produce overly favorable personality ratings. Indeed, their ratings actually can be more favorable than the corresponding self-ratings ( Watson & Humrichouse, 2006 ). This tendency for informants to produce unrealistically positive ratings has been termed the letter of recommendation effect ( Leising, Erbs, & Fritz, 2010 ) and the honeymoon effect when applied to newlyweds ( Watson & Humrichouse, 2006 ). Other Ways of Classifying Objective Tests Comprehensiveness. In addition to the source of the scores, there are at least two other important dimensions on which personality tests differ. The first such dimension concerns the extent to which an instrument seeks to assess personality in a reasonably comprehensive manner. At one extreme, many widely used measures are designed to assess a single core attribute. Examples of these types of measures include the Toronto Alexithymia Scale ( Bagby, Parker, & Taylor, 1994 ), the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale ( Rosenberg, 1965 ), and the Multidimensional Experiential Avoidance Questionnaire ( Gamez, Chmielewski, Kotov, Ruggero, & Watson, 2011 ). At the other extreme, a number of omnibus inventories contain a large number of specific scales and purport to measure personality in a reasonably comprehensive manner. These instruments include the California Psychological Inventory ( Gough, 1987 ), the Revised HEXACO Personality Inventory (HEXACO-PI-R) ( Lee & Ashton, 2006 ), the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire ( Patrick, Curtin, & Tellegen, 2002 ), the NEO Personality Inventory-3 (NEO-PI-3) ( McCrae et al., 2005 ), the Personality Research Form ( Jackson, 1984 ), and the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire ( Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1980 ). Breadth of the target characteristics Second, personality characteristics can be classified at different levels of breadth or generality. For example, many models emphasize broad, “big” traits such as neuroticism and extraversion. These general dimensions can be divided up into several distinct yet empirically correlated component traits. For example, the broad dimension of extraversion contains such specific component traits as dominance (extraverts are assertive, persuasive, and exhibitionistic), sociability (extraverts seek out and enjoy the company of others), positive emotionality (extraverts are active, energetic, cheerful, and enthusiastic), and adventurousness (extraverts enjoy intense, exciting experiences). Some popular personality instruments are designed to assess only the broad, general traits. For example, similar to the sample instrument displayed in Table 1, the Big Five Inventory ( John & Srivastava, 1999 ) contains brief scales assessing the broad traits of neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. In contrast, many instruments—including several of the omnibus inventories mentioned earlier—were designed primarily to assess a large number of more specific characteristics. Finally, some inventories—including the HEXACO-PI-R and the NEO-PI-3—were explicitly designed to provide coverage of both general and specific trait characteristics. For instance, the NEO-PI-3 contains six specific facet scales (e.g., Gregariousness, Assertiveness, Positive Emotions, Excitement Seeking) that then can be combined to assess the broad trait of extraversion. Projective and Implicit Tests Projective tests. As noted earlier, some approaches to personality assessment are based on the belief that important thoughts, feelings, and motives operate outside of conscious awareness. Projective tests represent influential early examples of this approach. Projective tests originally were based on the projective hypothesis ( Frank, 1939 ; Lilienfeld, Wood, & Garb, 2000 ): If a person is asked to describe or interpret ambiguous stimuli—that is, things that can be understood in a number of different ways—their responses will be influenced by nonconscious needs, feelings, and experiences (note, however, that the theoretical rationale underlying these measures has evolved over time) (see, for example, Spangler, 1992 ). Two prominent examples of projective tests are the Rorschach Inkblot Test ( Rorschach, 1921 ) and the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) ( Morgan & Murray, 1935 ). The former asks respondents to interpret symmetrical blots of ink, whereas the latter asks them to generate stories about a series of pictures. For instance, one TAT picture depicts an elderly woman with her back turned to a young man; the latter looks downward with a somewhat perplexed expression. Another picture displays a man clutched from behind by three mysterious hands. What stories could you generate in response to these pictures? In comparison to objective tests, projective tests tend to be somewhat cumbersome and labor intensive to administer. The biggest challenge, however, has been to develop a reliable and valid scheme to score the extensive set of responses generated by each respondent. The most widely used Rorschach scoring scheme is the Comprehensive System developed by Exner ( 2003 ). The most influential TAT scoring system was developed by McClelland, Atkinson and colleagues between 1947 and 1953 ( McClelland et al., 1989 ; see also Winter, 1998 ), which can be used to assess motives such as the need for achievement. The validity of the Rorschach has been a matter of considerable controversy ( Lilienfeld et al., 2000 ; Mihura, Meyer, Dumitrascu, & Bombel, 2012 ; Society for Personality Assessment, 2005 ). Most reviews acknowledge that Rorschach scores do show some ability to predict important outcomes. Its critics, however, argue that it fails to provide important incremental information beyond other, more easily acquired information, such as that obtained from standard self-report measures ( Lilienfeld et al., 2000 ). Validity evidence is more impressive for the TAT. In particular, reviews have concluded that TAT-based measures of the need for achievement (a) show significant validity to predict important criteria and (b) provide important information beyond that obtained from objective measures of this motive ( McClelland et al., 1989 ; Spangler, 1992 ). Furthermore, given the relatively weak associations between objective and projective measures of motives, McClelland et al. ( 1989 ) argue that they tap somewhat different processes, with the latter assessing implicit motives ( Schultheiss, 2008 ). Implicit Tests In recent years, researchers have begun to use implicit measures of personality ( Back, Schmuckle, & Egloff, 2009 ; Vazire & Carlson, 2011 ). These tests are based on the assumption that people form automatic or implicit associations between certain concepts based on their previous experience and behavior. If two concepts (e.g., me and assertive ) are strongly associated with each other, then they should be sorted together more quickly and easily than two concepts (e.g., me and shy ) that are less strongly associated. Although validity evidence for these measures still is relatively sparse, the results to date are encouraging: Back et al. ( 2009 ), for example, showed that implicit measures of the FFM personality traits predicted behavior even after controlling for scores on objective measures of these same characteristics. Behavioral and Performance Measures A final approach is to infer important personality characteristics from direct samples of behavior. For example, Funder and Colvin ( 1988 ) brought opposite-sex pairs of participants into the laboratory and had them engage in a five-minute “getting acquainted” conversation; raters watched videotapes of these interactions and then scored the participants on various personality characteristics. Mehl, Gosling, and Pennebaker ( 2006 ) used the electronically activated recorder (EAR) to obtain samples of ambient sounds in participants’ natural environments over a period of two days; EAR-based scores then were related to self- and observer-rated measures of personality. For instance, more frequent talking over this two-day period was significantly related to both self- and observer-ratings of extraversion. As a final example, Gosling, Ko, Mannarelli, and Morris ( 2002 ) sent observers into college students’ bedrooms and then had them rate the students’ personality characteristics on the Big Five traits. The averaged observer ratings correlated significantly with participants’ self-ratings on all five traits. Follow-up analyses indicated that conscientious students had neater rooms, whereas those who were high in openness to experience had a wider variety of books and magazines. Behavioral measures offer several advantages over other approaches to assessing personality. First, because behavior is sampled directly, this approach is not subject to the types of response biases (e.g., self-enhancement bias, reference group effect) that can distort scores on objective tests. Second, as is illustrated by the Mehl et al. ( 2006 ) and Gosling et al. ( 2002 ) studies, this approach allows people to be studied in their daily lives and in their natural environments, thereby avoiding the artificiality of other methods ( Mehl et al., 2006 ). Finally, this is the only approach that actually assesses what people do, as opposed to what they think or feel (see Baumeister, Vohs, & Funder, 2007 ). At the same time, however, this approach also has some disadvantages. This assessment strategy clearly is much more cumbersome and labor intensive than using objective tests, particularly self-report. Moreover, similar to projective tests, behavioral measures generate a rich set of data that then need to be scored in a reliable and valid way. Finally, even the most ambitious study only obtains relatively small samples of behavior that may provide a somewhat distorted view of a person’s true characteristics. For example, your behavior during a “getting acquainted” conversation on a single given day inevitably will reflect a number of transient influences (e.g., level of stress, quality of sleep the previous night) that are idiosyncratic to that day. No single method of assessing personality is perfect or infallible; each of the major methods has both strengths and limitations. By using a diversity of approaches, researchers can overcome the limitations of any single method and develop a more complete and integrative view of personality. Discussion Questions Under what conditions would you expect self-ratings to be most similar to informant ratings? When would you expect these two sets of ratings to be most different from each other? The findings of Gosling, et al. (2002) demonstrate that we can obtain important clues about students’ personalities from their dorm rooms. What other aspects of people’s lives might give us important information about their personalities? Suppose that you were planning to conduct a study examining the personality trait of honesty. What method or methods might you use to measure it? Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2009). Predicting actual behavior from the explicit and implicit self-concept of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97 , 533–548. Bagby, R. M., Parker, J. D. A., Taylor, G. J. (1994). The Twenty-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale: I. Item selection and cross-validation of the factor structure. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38 , 23–32. Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2 , 396–403. Beer, A., & Watson, D. (2010). The effects of information and exposure on self-other agreement. Journal of Research in Personality, 44 , 38–45. Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W, & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1980). Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Exner, J. E. (2003). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system (4th ed.). New York, NY: Wiley. Frank, L. K. (1939). Projective methods for the study of personality. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 8 , 389–413. Friedman, H. S., Kern, K. L., & Reynolds, C. A. (2010). Personality and health, subjective well-being, and longevity. Journal of Personality, 78 , 179–215. Funder, D. C. (2012). Accurate personality judgment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21 , 177–182. Funder, D. C., & Colvin, C. R. (1988). Friends and strangers: Acquaintanceship, agreement, and the accuracy of personality judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55 , 149–158. Funder, D. C., & Dobroth, K. M. (1987). Differences between traits: Properties associated with interjudge agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 , 409–418. Gamez, W., Chmielewski, M., Kotov, R., Ruggero, C., & Watson, D. (2011). Development of a measure of experiential avoidance: The Multidimensional Experiential Avoidance Questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 23 , 692–713. Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. C. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40 , 84–96. Gosling, S. D., Ko, S. J., Mannarelli, T., & Morris, M. E. (2002). A room with a cue: Personality judgments based on offices and bedrooms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 , 379–388. Gough, H. G. (1987). California Psychological Inventory [Administrator’s guide]. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Heine, S. J., Buchtel, E. E., & Norenzayan, A. (2008). What do cross-national comparisons of personality traits tell us? The case of conscientiousness. Psychological Science, 19 , 309–313. Jackson, D. N. (1984). Personality Research Form manual (3rd ed.). Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Kotov, R., Gamez, W., Schmidt, F., & Watson, D. (2010). Linking “big” personality traits to anxiety, depressive, and substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136 , 768–821. Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2006). Further assessment of the HEXACO Personality Inventory: Two new facet scales and an observer report form. Psychological Assessment, 18 , 182–191. Leising, D., Erbs, J., & Fritz, U. (2010). The letter of recommendation effect in informant ratings of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98 , 668–682. Lilienfeld, S. O., Wood, J. M., & Garb, H. N. (2000). The scientific status of projective techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1 , 27–66. Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 3 , 635–694. McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and implicit motives differ? Psychological Review, 96 , 690–702. McCrae, R. R. (1994). The counterpoint of personality assessment: Self-reports and observer ratings. Assessment, 1 , 159–172. McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., & Martin, T. A. (2005). The NEO-PI-3: A more readable Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84 , 261–270. McGregor, I., McAdams, D. P., & Little, B. R. (2006). Personal projects, life stories, and happiness: On being true to traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 40 , 551–572. Mehl, M. R., Gosling, S. D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). Personality in its natural habitat: Manifestations and implicit folk theories of personality in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 , 862–877. Meyer, G. J., & Kurtz, J. E. (2006). Advancing personality assessment terminology: Time to retire “objective” and “projective” as personality test descriptors. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87 , 223–225. Mihura, J. L., Meyer, G. J., Dumitrascu, N., & Bombel, G. (2012). The validity of individual Rorschach variables: Systematic Reviews and meta-analyses of the Comprehensive System. Psychological Bulletin . (Advance online publication.) doi:10.1037/a0029406 Mineka, S., Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1998). Comorbidity of anxiety and unipolar mood disorders. Annual Review of Psychology, 49 , 377–412. Morgan, C. D., & Murray, H. A. (1935). A method for investigating fantasies. The Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 34 , 389–406. Oh, I.-S., Wang, G., & Mount, M. K. (2011). Validity of observer ratings of the five-factor model of personality traits: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 , 762–773. Oltmanns, T. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2009). Person perception and personality pathology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18 , 32–36. Patrick, C. J., Curtin, J. J., & Tellegen, A. (2002). Development and validation of a brief form of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 14 , 150–163. Paunonen, S. V., & LeBel, E. P. (2012). Socially desirable responding and its elusive effects on the validity of personality assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103 , 158–175. Pinto, R., Rijsdijk, F., Frazier-Wood, A. C., Asherson, P., & Kuntsi, J. (2012). Bigger families fare better: A novel method to estimate rater contrast effects in parental ratings on ADHD symptoms. Behavior Genetics, 42 , 875–885. Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135 , 322–338. Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2 , 313–345. Rorschach, H. (1942) (Original work published 1921). Psychodiagnostik [Psychodiagnostics] . Bern, Switzerland: Bircher. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Schultheiss, O. C. (2008). Implicit motives. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed.) (pp. 603–633). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Society for Personality Assessment. (2005). The status of the Rorschach in clinical and forensic practice: An official statement by the Board of Trustees of the Society for Personality Assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85 , 219–237. Spangler, W. D. (1992). Validity of questionnaire and TAT measures of need for achievement: Two meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 112 , 140–154. Vazire, S., & Carlson, E. N. (2011). Others sometimes know us better than we know ourselves. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20 , 104–108. Watson, D., & Humrichouse, J. (2006). Personality development in emerging adulthood: Integrating evidence from self- and spouse-ratings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91 , 959–974. Watson, D., Hubbard, B., & Wiese, D. (2000). Self-other agreement in personality and affectivity: The role of acquaintanceship, trait visibility, and assumed similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 , 546–558. Winter, D. G. (1998). Toward a science of personality psychology: David McClelland’s development of empirically derived TAT measures. History of Psychology, 1 , 130–153. Creative Commons License How to cite this Noba module using APA Style Forgot your password? Design Optimization of Marine Propeller Using Elitist Particle Swarm Intelligence Published: 14 October 2024 Volume 5 , article number  96 , ( 2024 ) Cite this article Fahad Ali Khan 1 , Nadeem Shaukat 2 , 3 , Ajmal Shah 1 , 2 , Abrar Hashmi 4 & Muhammad Atiq Ur Rehman Tariq 5 , 6   Marine transportation is still the primary source of global transportation. The propeller, which is a critical component of the propulsion system, must be designed with multiple constraints and objectives to satisfy the need. Recent studies propose that utilizing an improved optimization algorithm and computational analysis would explore better designs than conventional methods. In the present study, the elitist particle swarm optimization (EPSO) technique is implemented to optimize the design of a marine propeller. Potsdam’s Conventional Propeller VP 1304 is used as a benchmark design case. Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equation-based computational fluid dynamics (CFD) along with vortex lattice method (VLM) and fluid-structure interaction (FSI) model is used for computational analysis. The results obtained in this study are validated against the previously published experimental data. An optimized propeller design is proposed based on the elitist particle swarm optimization technique. It is observed that the proposed design shows improved open water performance for lower advance coefficient ( J ) values based on the given constraints. It is also observed that open water efficiency is improved by 7% for \(J=0.6\) compared to the original design. The one-way fluid-structure interaction analysis shows that the proposed design is structurally stable under open water test conditions. This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access. Access this article Subscribe and save. Get 10 units per month Download Article/Chapter or eBook 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter Cancel anytime Price includes VAT (Russian Federation) Instant access to the full article PDF. Rent this article via DeepDyve Institutional subscriptions Data Availability No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study. Ribeiro SK, Figueroa MJ, Creutzig F, Dubeux C, Hupe J, Kobayashi S, Brettas LAdM, Thrasher T, Webb S, Zou J (2012) Energy end-use: transport. Global Energy Assessment (GEA), pp 575–648. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511793677.015 Yevdokimov Y (2010). Climate change and transportation. INTECH Open Access Publisher. https://doi.org/10.5772/9820 Corbett JJ (2004) Marine transportation and energy use. Encyclopedia of Energy, pp 745–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-176480-X/00193-5 Schnurr REJ, Walker TR (2019). Marine transportation and energy use. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-409548-9.09270-8 Article   Google Scholar   IMO, Safe, secure and efficient shipping on clean oceans. (n.d.) https://greenvoyage2050.imo.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/01/third-imo-ghg-study-2014-executive-summary-and-final-report.pdf Vesting F (2015) Marine propeller optimisation - strategy and algorithm development Viitanen V, Siikonen T, Sánchez-Caja A (2020) Cavitation on model- and full-scale marine propellers: steady and transient viscous flow simulations at different reynolds numbers. J Mar Sci Eng 8(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8020141 . https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/8/2/141 Gaggero S, Villa D (2017) Steady cavitating propeller performance by using OpenFOAM, StarCCM+and a boundary element method. Proc Inst Mech Eng Pt M: J Eng Marit Environ 231(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/1475090216644280 Yusvika M, Prabowo AR, Tjahjana DDDP, Sohn JM (2020) Cavitation prediction of ship propeller based on temperature and fluid properties of water. J Mar Sci Eng 8(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/JMSE8060465 Alves Pereira F, Di Felice F, Salvatore F (2016) Propeller cavitation in non-uniform flow and correlation with the near pressure field. J Mar Sci Eng 4(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse4040070 . https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/4/4/70 Yusvika M, Prabowo AR, Baek SJ, Tjahjana DDDP (2020) Achievements in observation and prediction of cavitation: effect and damage on the ship propellers. Procedia Struct Integr 27:109–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROSTR.2020.07.015 Liu D (2015) In: Procedia engineering, vol 126. Elsevier Ltd, pp 310–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.11.190 Kim JH, Lee H, Kim SH, Choi HY, Hah ZH, Seol HS (2022) Performance prediction of composite marine propeller in non-cavitating and cavitating flow. Appl Sci 12(10):5170. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12105170 Wang Y, Göttsche U, Abdel-Maksoud M (2020) Sound field properties of non-cavitating marine propellers. J Mar Sci Eng 8(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8110885 . https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/8/11/885 Tian J, Zhang Z, Ni Z, Hua H (2017) Flow-induced vibration analysis of elastic propellers in a cyclic inflow: an experimental and numerical study. Appl Ocean Res 65:47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APOR.2017.03.014 Carlton JS (2019) In: Carlton JS (ed) Marine propellers and propulsion, 4th edn. Butterworth-Heinemann, pp 81–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100366-4.00006-7 . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780081003664000067 Shami TM, El-Saleh AA, Alswaitti M, Al-Tashi Q, Summakieh MA, Mirjalili S (2022) Particle swarm optimization: a comprehensive survey. IEEE Access 10:10031–10061. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3142859 Taheri R, Mazaheri K (2013) Hydrodynamic optimization of marine propeller using gradient and non-gradientbased algorithms. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica 10(3). https://doi.org/10.12700/aph.10.03.2013.3.15. Xue L, Zeng P, Yu H (2020) SETNDS: a SET-based non-dominated sorting algorithm for multi-objective optimization problems. Appl Sci (Switzerland) 10(19):1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10196858 Eberhart YS (2001) Particle swarm optimization: development, applications and resources, vol 1, pp 81–86. https://doi.org/10.1109/CEC.2001.934374 de los Ángeles Solari M, Ocampo E (2007). In: Sobh T, Elleithy K, Mahmood A, Karim M (eds) Innovative algorithms and techniques in automation, industrial electronics and telecommunications. Springer, Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 263–268 He H, Shi P, Zhao Y (2022) Hierarchical optimization algorithm and applications of spacecraft trajectory optimization. Aerospace 9(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace9020081 . https://www.mdpi.com/2226-4310/9/2/81 Zhang X (2015) The vessel schedule optimization based on particle swarm optimization algorithm, p 005. https://doi.org/10.22323/1.259.0005 Verdejo H, Pino V, Kliemann W, Becker C, Delpiano J (2020) Implementation of particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm for tuning of power system stabilizers in multimachine electric power systems. Energies 13(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/en13082093 . https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/8/2093 Zheng Q, Feng BW, Liu ZY, Chang HC (2021) Application of improved particle swarm optimisation algorithm in hull form optimisation. J Mar Sci Eng 9(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9090955 . https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/9/9/955 Wang K, Yan X, Yuan Y, Tang D (2016) Optimizing ship energy efficiency: application of particle swarm optimization algorithm. Proc Inst Mech Eng Pt M: J Eng Marit Environ 232(4):379–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475090216638879 Krasilnikov VI, Sun J, Halse KH (2009) CFD investigation in scale effect on propellers with different magnitude of skew in turbulent flow. The first international symposium on marine propulsors, Trondheim Google Scholar   Tu TN (2019) Numerical simulation of propeller open water characteristics using RANSE method. Alexandria Eng J 58(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2019.05.005 Gaggero S, Gonzalez-Adalid J, Sobrino MP (2016) Design and analysis of a new generation of CLT propellers. Appl Ocean Res 59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2016.06.014 Sánchez-Caja A, Sipilä T, Pylkkänen J (2006) Simulation of the incompressible viscous flow around an endplate propeller using a RANSE solver Dong XQ, Li W, Yang CJ, Noblesse F (2018) RANSE-based simulation and analysis of scale effects on open-water performance of the PPTC-II benchmark propeller. J Ocean Eng Sci 3(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joes.2018.05.001 Mirjalili S, Lewis A, Mirjalili SAM (2015) In: Procedia computer science, vol 51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.05.504 Sikirica A, Carija Z, Kranjcevic L, Lucin I (2019) Grid type and turbulence model influence on propeller characteristics prediction. J Mar Sci Eng 7(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse7100374 Bacciaglia A, Ceruti A, Liverani A (2021) Controllable pitch propeller optimization through meta-heuristic algorithm. Eng Comput 37(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-020-00938-8 Zhang Y, Wang S, Ji G (2015). A comprehensive survey on particle swarm optimization algorithm and its applications. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/931256 Vesting F, Bensow RE, Johansson R, Gustafsson R, Costa N (2016) Procedure for application-oriented optimisation of marine propellers. J Mar Sci Eng 4(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse4040083 Masoomi M, Mosavi A (2021) The one-way FSI method based on RANS-FEM for the open water test of a marine propeller at the different loading conditions. J Mar Sci Eng 9(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9040351 . https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/9/4/351 Yao J (2015) Investigation on hydrodynamic performance of a marine propeller in oblique flow by RANS computations. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng 7(1):56–69. https://doi.org/10.1515/IJNAOE-2015-0005 Krasilnikov VI, Zhang Z, Hong F (2009) Analysis of Unsteady Propeller Blade Forces by RANS Dubbioso G, Muscari R, Di Mascio A (2013) Analysis of the performances of a marine propeller operating in oblique flow. Comput Fluids 75:86–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPFLUID.2013.01.017 Abdel-maksoud M, Hellwig K, Blaurock J (2004) Numerical and experimental investigation of the hub vortex flow of a marine propeller (August), 8–13 Simonsen C, Stern F (2005) RANS maneuvering simulation of Esso Osaka with rudder and a body-force propeller. J Ship Res 49:98–120. https://doi.org/10.5957/jsr.2005.49.2.98 Valentine D (1993) Reynolds-averaged navier-stokes codes and marine propulsor analysis, p 42 Subhas S, Saji VF, Ramakrishna S, Das HN (2012) CFD Analysis of a Propeller Flow and Cavitation. Int J Comput Appl 55(16):26–33. https://doi.org/10.5120/8841-3125 Mulcahy L, Prusty G, Gardiner C (2010) Hydroelastic tailoring of flexible composite propellers. Ships and Offshore Structures 5:359–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2010.481139 Blasques JP, Berggreen C, Andersen P (2010) Hydro-elastic analysis and optimization of a composite marine propeller. Mar Struct 23(1):22–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MARSTRUC.2009.10.002 Young YL (2008) Fluid–structure interaction analysis of flexible composite marine propellers. J Fluids Struct 24(6):799–818. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JFLUIDSTRUCTS.2007.12.010 Lee H, Song MC, Suh JC, Chang BJ (2014) Hydro-elastic analysis of marine propellers based on a BEM-FEM coupled FSI algorithm. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng 6(3):562–577. https://doi.org/10.2478/IJNAOE-2013-0198 He XD, Hong Y, Wang RG (2012) Hydroelastic optimisation of a composite marine propeller in a non-uniform wake. Ocean Eng 39:14–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OCEANENG.2011.10.007 Maljaars PJ, Bronswijk L, Windt J, Grasso N, Kaminski M (2018) Experimental validation of fluid–structure interaction computations of flexible composite propellers in open water conditions using BEM-FEM and RANS-FEM methods. J Mar Sci Eng 6:51. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse6020051 Hong Y, Hao LF, Wang PC, Liu WB, Zhang HM, Wang RG (2014) Structural design and multi-objective evaluation of composite bladed propeller. Polym Polym Compos 22(3):275–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/096739111402200308 Han S, Lee H, Song MC, Chang B (2015) p V07AT09A038. https://doi.org/10.1115/IMECE2015-51089 Paik BG, Kim GD, Kim KY, Seol HS, Hyun BS, Lee SG, Jung YR (2013) Investigation on the performance characteristics of the flexible propellers. Ocean Eng 73:139–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2013.09.005 Shayanpoor A, Hajivand A, Moore M (2021) Hydroelastic analysis of composite marine propeller basis Fluid-Structure Interaction (FSI) 13:51–59 Barkmann U, Heinke HJ, Lübke L (2011) Potsdam Propeller Test Case (PPTC) test case description. Second International Symposium on Marine Propulsors smp’11, Workshop: Propeller performance (June), 6. http://www.marinepropulsors.com/smp/files/downloads/smp11_workshop/smp11_workshop/II-2.1_Klerebrant_Klasson.pdf Heinke UH (2011) Potsdam Propeller Test Case ( PPTC ) cavitation tests with the model propeller VP1304 (April), 1–31 Carrigan (2024) The influence of meshing strategies on simulation efficiency. https://resources.system-analysis.cadence.com/view-all/the-influence-of-meshing-strategies-on-simulation-efficiency Steinbrenner J, Inc P, Abelanet J (2007) Anisotropic tetrahedral meshing based on surface deformation techniques. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2007-554 Lacroix R, Máca D (2024) Potsdam propeller CFD benchmark. Tech. rep Grabert R, Lübke L, Klose R, Barkmann U (2017) Propulsion comittee of 28 th ITTC report 4488 PPTC propeller. Tech. rep ITTC (2011) ITTC - recommended procedures and guidelines. International Towing Tank Conference ANSYS (2014) Introduction to ANSYS fluent. Lecture 7: turbulence modeling Zhao M, Wan D, Gao Y (2021) Comparative study of different turbulence models for cavitational flows around naca0012 hydrofoil. J Mar Sci Eng 9(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9070742 Epps B, Chalfant J, Kimball R, Techet A, Flood K, Chryssostomidis C (2009) OpenProp: an open-source parametric design and analysis tool for propellers. Proceedings of the 2009 grand challenges in modeling & simulation conference Epps BP, Kimball RW (2013) Unified rotor lifting line theory. J Ship Res 57(4). https://doi.org/10.5957/JOSR.57.4.110040 Xu G, Zhao X, Wu T, Li R, Li X (2018) An elitist learning particle swarm optimization with scaling mutation and ring topology. IEEE Access 6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2885036 Propeller Workshop smp’15 — SVA (2024). https://www.sva-potsdam.de/en/smp15-propeller-workshop/ Download references Author information Authors and affiliations. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Pakistan Institute of Engineering & Applied Sciences, Nilore, 45650, Islamabad, Pakistan Fahad Ali Khan & Ajmal Shah Center for Mathematical Sciences, Pakistan Institute of Engineering & Applied Sciences, Nilore, 45650, Islamabad, Pakistan Nadeem Shaukat & Ajmal Shah Department of Physics and Applied Mathematics, Pakistan Institute of Engineering & Applied Sciences, Nilore, 45650, Islamabad, Pakistan Nadeem Shaukat Department of Electrical Engineering, Capital University of Sciences and Technology, 45750, Islamabad, Pakistan Abrar Hashmi Institute for Sustainable Industries & Liveable Cities, Victoria University, 14428, Melbourne, 8001, Australia Muhammad Atiq Ur Rehman Tariq Center of Excellence in Water Resource Engineering, UET Lahore, 54890, Lahore, Pakistan You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar Contributions Fahad Ali Khan and Nadeem Shaukat conducted the research and study. All authors prepared and reviewed the draft. Corresponding author Correspondence to Nadeem Shaukat . Ethics declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate. Not applicable Consent for Publication Conflict of interest. The authors declare no competing interests. Additional information Publisher's note. Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This article is part of the Topical Collection on Operations Research in Applied Energy, Environment, Climate Change & Sustainability Rights and permissions Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. Reprints and permissions About this article Ali Khan, F., Shaukat, N., Shah, A. et al. Design Optimization of Marine Propeller Using Elitist Particle Swarm Intelligence. Oper. Res. Forum 5 , 96 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43069-024-00368-y Download citation Received : 22 November 2023 Accepted : 08 September 2024 Published : 14 October 2024 DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s43069-024-00368-y Share this article Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative Marine propeller Particle swarm optimization Computational fluid dynamics Vortex lattice method Fluid structure interaction Advertisement Find a journal Publish with us Track your research 490 IMAGES Analysis of Personality Assessment Inventory What is a personality assessment? Here’s what you need to know 6 Impressive Benefits of Personality Assessment (PDF) Methods of personality assessment The Study of Personality Assessment, Research and Theory 😂 Methods of personality assessment. Assessing Personality. 2019-01-10 VIDEO Case Study Method In Hindi || वैयक्तिक अध्ययन विधि || D.Ed SE (I.D) || All Students || Special BSTC What is CASE STUDY in research ||Research || net sociology || cuet-pg|| Day-2, Case Study Method for better Teaching #Case_study_method#notes #study #psychology #PG #BEd Case study method/research techniques/swats Passion What is Case Study Method in Psychology Urdu I Hindi #Casestudymethod #casestudy COMMENTS Personality: Methods of Personality Assessment The case-study technique gives information about the individual's parents and grand-parents, his home background, his medical history, his educational career, his friendships, his marital life, his profession and others. ... In physiological methods of assessment of personality following instruments are commonly used: 1. Pneumograph: Social Cognitive Personality Assessment: A Case Conceptualization Social-cognitive theory has had minimal influence on personality assessment and case conceptualization practices despite significant recent developments in theoretically driven assessment principles and strategies (Cervone et al., 2001, Mischel, 2004, Shoda et al., 2013).Nonetheless, even these recent advances, in and of themselves, are insufficient for the practicing cognitive behavioral ... Case Study Research Method in Psychology Case studies are in-depth investigations of a person, group, event, or community. Typically, data is gathered from various sources using several methods (e.g., observations & interviews). The case study research method originated in clinical medicine (the case history, i.e., the patient's personal history). In psychology, case studies are ... Personality Assessment, Measurement & Reseach Design The authors then discuss how personality measures are evaluated. This section of the chapter includes discussions of a measure's reliability, validity, and generalizability. Next the authors discuss the three key research methods used by personality psychologists. These are experimental designs, correlational designs, and case studies. Psychobiography and Case Study Methods The study of personality focuses on two main areas: understanding individual differences in personality traits, and understanding how the unique aspects of a person come together as a whole. ... individuals in personal, in-depth detail to achieve a unique understanding of them (as is done with psychobiography, case study methods, and other ... Personality Assessments: 10 Best Inventories, Tests, & Methods The scale has a solid theoretical and empirical grounding, making it a popular workplace assessment around the world. 4. NEO-PI-R. The NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 2008) is a highly popular self-report personality assessment based on Allport and Odbert's (1936) trait theory of personality. 7 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 ... On Personality Measures and Their Data: A Classification of Measurement We employ a new approach for classifying methods of personality measurement such as self-judgment, mental ability, and lifespace measures and the data they produce. We divide these measures into two fundamental groups: personal-source data, which arise from the target person's own reports, and external-source data, which derive from the areas surrounding the person. Personality assessment paradigms and methods: A collaborative This book, which provides a demonstration of trans-paradigmatic multimethod assessment by leading scholars in the personality assessment field in the context of one of the most interesting and thorough case studies in the history of clinical assessment, will be a useful resource for students, researchers, and practicing clinicians. PDF Personality Assessment, Measurement, and Research Methods Personality Assessment, Measurement, and Research Methods Chapter 2 ... •Case Studies. 1/20/2009 5 Correlational Studies ... complementary methods for exploring personality. 1/20/2009 6 Summary and Evaluation •Decisions about data source and research design depend on the purpose of study Clinical Application of Social Cognitive Theory: A Novel Personality We present a novel personality assessment method that applies social cognitive personality theory, and more specifically, the Knowledge and Appraisal Personality Architecture model (KAPA; Cervone, 2004; 2021; see Scott & Cervone, 2016).Our assessment method generates descriptions of how personality structures, including temperament, beliefs, goals, and evaluative standards, are activated in ... Personality assessment in depth: A casebook. Comprised of five unique and extended case studies, Personality Assessment in Depth examines contemporary clinical problems that are familiar to clinicians, but have not been explored extensively in the personality assessment field. Each case study demonstrates the test protocols of the Rorschach test. Thematic Apperception Test, MMPI or MCMI, and Human Figure Drawings. Important clinical ... PDF UNIT 3 BEHAVIOURAL ASSESSMENT Approaches to Personality 3.3.4 Process of Behavioural Change: Assessment, Treatment and Evaluation 3.4 Case Study Method 3.4.1 Purpose of Case Study Method 3.4.2 Types of Case Study Method 3.4.3 Strengths and Weaknesses of Case Study Method 3.5 Interview Method 3.5.1 Meaning and Purpose of Interview Method 3.5.2 Strengths and Weaknesses of Interview Method 3.6 Other ... The Interpersonal Situation: Integrating Personality Assessment, Case C5.P1 The official diagnostic system clinicians are currently asked to use to integrate their patients' personalities into a comprehensive clinical diagnosis employs a medical model that is empirically problematic and largely unhelpful for personality assessment, case formulation, treatment planning, and intervention. Trait-based (Widiger & Simonsen, 2005) and process-based (Eaton, South ... Personality Assessment 3. Personality Assessment. This is an edited and adapted chapter from Watson, D. (2019) in the NOBA series on psychology. For full attribution see end of chapter. This module provides a basic overview to the assessment of personality. It discusses objective personality tests (based on both self-report and informant ratings), projective and ... A scoping review on innovative methods for personality observation The study by Neuman and Cohen (2014) likewise is based on a new semantic vector approach (Turney and Pantel, 2010) to personality assessment and, through the construction of vectors representing personality dimensions and disorders, measures the similarity between these and texts written by people. Vector semantic models indicate that the ... Clinical Application of Social Cognitive Theory: A Novel Personality To illustrate our personality assessment method, we present a case study of a man in his forties who met criteria for persistent depressive disorder, with intermittent major depressive episodes ... Personality Assessment Paradigms and Methods This book, which provides a rich demonstration of trans-paradigmatic multimethod assessment by leading scholars in the personality assessment field in the context of one of the most interesting and thorough case studies in the history of clinical assessment, will be a useful resource for students, researchers, and practicing clinicians. Chapter 1, Part 2: Methods of Studying Personality Chapter 1: Introduction to Personality. Part 2: Methods of Studying Personality. In all types of research, we need to consider two closely related concepts: hypothesis vs. theory. A hypothesis can loosely be defined as an educated guess about some relationship or circumstance that we have observed, and the purpose of the hypothesis is to ... Case Study: Definition, Examples, Types, and How to Write Jean Piaget's observations of his own children are good examples of how an intrinsic case study can contribute to the development of a psychological theory. The three main case study types often used are intrinsic, instrumental, and collective. Intrinsic case studies are useful for learning about unique cases. Personality Assessment System Foundation Case Discussion. The Personality Assessment System (PAS) is a powerful tool for both understanding and predicting behavior. PAS profiles are derived from the scatter analysis of Weschler subtest scores. Within each profile lies a Primitive profile, a Basic Profile, and a Contact Profile. PAS theory is based on the premise that we are all born ... PDF UNIT 2 ASSESSMENT OF PERSONALITY* UNIT 2 ASSESSMENT OF PERSONALITY* Structure 2.1 Objectives 2.2 Introduction 2.3 Concept of Psychological Assessment 2.3.1 Properties of a Good Test 2.3.2 Ethics of Psychological Assessment 2.4 Personality Assessment: Its Uses 2.5 Methods of Personality Assessment 2.5.1 Observation 2.5.2 Interviews 2.5.3 Personality Inventories 2.5.4 Rating Scales Personality Assessment This module provides a basic overview to the assessment of personality. It discusses objective personality tests (based on both self-report and informant ratings), projective and implicit tests, and behavioral/performance measures. It describes the basic features of each method, as well as reviewing the strengths, weaknesses, and overall validity of each approach. Design Optimization of Marine Propeller Using Elitist Particle Swarm Marine transportation is still the primary source of global transportation. The propeller, which is a critical component of the propulsion system, must be designed with multiple constraints and objectives to satisfy the need. Recent studies propose that utilizing an improved optimization algorithm and computational analysis would explore better designs than conventional methods. In the present ... essay homework paper phd project resume review speech study thesis