ArticlePDF Available

What Does Different Personality Test and Behavioral Test Measure? and Do We Overuse Them?

Authors:

Abstract

What does different personality test and behavioral test measure? And do we overuse them? And what are the effects of eventual overuse of personality or psychological and behavioral tests within self-estimation? Like all self-estimated and or self-assessed tests, they require that the person wants and can report truthfully about oneself. But not so many tests that are based on or partly based on self-estimates or sometimes called self-assessed – measures congruence. This combined with that it´s occurred that if the client or test taker does several tests over time, the congruence changes and therefore gets a non-adequate or less adequate answer. This due to subconscious processes and combined with an unawareness of these phenomena. More often than not, the first test attempt is the most accurate. That due to the previous attempts led itself to overfamiliarity and overthinking the questions. At the same time, this leading to less accurate answers and therefore less proper use of tests. And in what ways can we prevent this
1
Journal of Psychology and Neuroscience Perspective Article
Volume 3 | Issue 2 J Psychol Neurosci; 2021 www.unisciencepub.com
Stefan Lindstrom
ISSN 2693-2490
What Does Dierent Personality Test and Behavioral Test Measure? and
Do We Overuse Them?
*Correspondence author
Stefan Lindstrom
MBA, and Entreprenologist.
Stockholm
Sweden
E-mail : stefan@stefanlindstrom.com
Submitted : 02 Jun 2021 ; Published : 16 Jun 2021
Like all self-estimated and or self-assessed tests, they require
that the person wants and can report truthfully about oneself.
But not so many tests that are based on or partly based on
self-estimates or sometimes called self-assessed – measure
congruence.
Congruence is the match between given answers among
themselves. Other words that can describe congruence are
conformity, uniformity, concord, dictionary of EPT test [8]
Therefore, dierent self-estimated tests measure this in
dierent ways and some do not even measure it . Some test-
companies that this research has asked, has refused to answer
if they measure something like consistency or reliability at all.
Beginning with the concept of tests.
What is congruence and what does it mean?
Congruence = conformity, uniformity, compliance, concord,
agreement. This implies a species of equivalence. As an
abstract term, congruence means similarity between. The
concept of congruence is generally believed to refer to personal
awareness and understanding of oneself as well as one’s ability
to communicate that truthfully.
Response congruence = This is the match between your answers
among themselves. Therefore, ones answers give a probability
– a likelihood of one personal response in a percentage. Like
all self-estimated and or self-assessed tests, they require that
the person wants and can report truthfully about oneself. The
concept of congruence is generally believed to refer to personal
awareness and understanding of oneself as well as one’s ability
to communicate that truthfully.
The term congruence is generally assumed to refer to personal
awareness and understanding of oneself as well as one’s ability
to communicate it truthfully. I have discovered here that many
self-measures use similar test scenarios to address this, which
Entreprenologist. Stockholm, Sweden
may contain a number of questions designed to measure the
same thing, only formulated dierently. The dierent phrases
help to deal with misunderstandings in communication and
to test for personal reliability when answering the same type
of questions. Cronbach’s alpha measures the reliability of the
question itself but cannot determine the reliability of the person
answering the question. This means that research has shown
that if a person answers a question truthfully, the question
can reliably measure the measured value as it is designed to
measure. But what happens if the self-image is wrong or if
one unknowingly answers “wrong” or responds and answers
the question or even questions subconsciously to a “desired
condition”.
Not so many tests that are based on or partly based on self-
estimates or sometimes called self-assessed – measure
response congruence. That is in use to prevent or make up
for unknowingly random and shifting in the test persons
focus of mind and therefore answers. One test found EPT[7]
measures response congruence, and in %, which is rounded o
in the nearest ve or ten numbers. i.e., 60%, 70%, 85%, etc.
Another word for this Response congruence could be - Internal
Consistency – which measures whether several items that
propose to measure the same general construct produce similar
scores. For example, if a respondent expressed agreement with
the statements “I like to ride bicycles” and “I’ve enjoyed riding
bicycles in the past”, and disagreement with the statement
“I hate bicycles”, this would be indicative of good internal
consistency (9) of the test.
Several tests refer to a Cronbach Alpha or Tau-equivalent
reliability that is a single-administration test score reliability
(i.e., the reliability of persons over items holding occasion
xed coecient, commonly referred [1][2][3] to as Cronbach’s
alpha or coecient alpha is the most famous and commonly
used among reliability coecients.
But recent studies recommend not using it unconditionally.[4]
[5][6][7] Reliability coecients based on structural equation
2
Volume 3 | Issue 2
J Psychol Neurosci; 2021 www.unisciencepub.com
modeling are often recommended as its alternative.
This coecient Cronbach’s alpha measures whether questions
belonging to the same scale produce similar scores and so does
EPT´s response congruence[8] with the dierence if the same
question over several dierent contexts still from the responder
is given the same answer as previous measures (inputs) and
therefore the same accuracy. (This from the responder’s
answer.)
Cronbach’s alpha measures whether questions belonging to the
same scale produce similar scores. Cronbach’s alpha measures
the reliability of the question itself, but cannot determine the
reliability of the person answering the question.
This means that research has demonstrated that should a
person answer truthfully to a question, then the question can
reliably measure the metric it is designed to measure. Like all
self-estimated and or self-assessed tests, they require that the
person wants and can report truthfully about oneself.
What is Reliability vs response congruence.
Reliability is another concept. Reliability indicates how reliable
the test is. The reliability in the assessment of the archetype is
how consistent the dierent archetypes are.
It is clear that there are some dierences among the various
features of the archetypes, but there are several common
denominators. It is also possible that a person can move in
and out of the dierent archetypes in dierent stages of his/
her development.
Reliability measures how reliable the test is in terms of
distinguishing the described archetypes. It is a question of
the measuring accuracy and how well the test dierentiates
among the archetypes. The experiences we have of the test are
likely dependent on the fact that the test is most often used
by people who have an orientation towards entrepreneurship.
What remains to proceed with the assessment of reliability is to
allow the same individuals to come back to see how consistent
their answers are on dierent measurement occasions.
One test that does measure response congruence – EPT and its
validation and reliability [8] In the EPT test it is given in % and
i.e., if the responder replays to the measured i.e.,
In 3 out of 3 or in 2 out of 3 etc it gives a dierent % of response
congruence. Also asked several times in dierent situations
and combinations. EPT measures response congruence, in %,
which is rounded o in the nearest ve or ten numbers. i.e.,
60%, 70%, 85%, etc. And it the EPT´s test case with response
congruence the answers give a probability - a likelihood of
one’s personal response in a percentage. After 21 questions in
4 dierent surroundings , 84 questions or position statements
in total.
This research also takes into account that. Since not so many
test measures response congruence, it has in few cases been
comment on as response congruence is in alignment with the
idea of stimulus-response congruence. Claimed as, has, or
would have a physical component to it that is not applicable to
some kinds of test.
Another “measurement” that appears is ‘’Face Validity’’ much
as ‘’apparent’ or ‘’obvious validity’ indicates if the test at rst
glance appears to measure what it intends to measure.
There is no statistical or scientic in that method but can
feel good and this may be important to ensure, as a test in
that a person may need to perceive the test as relevant to feel
motivated to take it.
Several test in a row?
It has occurred that if the client or test taker does several tests
over time the congruence change and one person can therefore
get a non-adequate answer. This is due to subconscious
processes, and this combined with an unawareness of these
phenomena.
Predispositions change the test to varying degrees. i.e.,
the sensitive person has a higher degree of propensity to
subconsciously their responses. Liability and or insecurity of
taking the test. These 3 major factors are, as yet known, that
HR people should not start the recruitment process before a
mutual trust has been established. i.e., post-interview. That will
more lead to a more positive feeling like -you have moved on,
instead of, we will check who you are – before. All this can
determine the mindset of the persons doing the tests.
Several results shows that retake assessment after a break of 6
months will give similar scores.[10] [11]
Conclusion
More often than not, the rst test attempt is the most accurate.
If one does retest, do not retake the test too close to the previous
attempt as this lends itself to overfamiliarity and overthinking
the questions. In a psychology test that could lead to, for
example – “Do you experience chronic feeling of emptiness”?
– “No, I don´t have Borderline”! – end quote
Most tests claim this overfamiliarity and overthinking and
points it out. If you do retest, do not retake them too close to
the previous. Some tests do not even recommend retaking the
test more often than once every 6 months.
So, both the psychology test business and the test execution
HR and recruitment business should be aware of this and in
an ethical way not overburden the clients with continuous
testings, and or for every applied job. At the same time, this
leading to less accurate answers and therefore less proper use
of tests.
Clients or within HR, -employees as well as jobseekers,
usually seeks several jobs and then to begin every recruitment
process with tests instead of ending, when really needed!
That said when other major parts and pieces seems to
be in place such as after CV reading and interviews.
That process would lead to less misuse and overuse and
therefore more accurate recruitments, as well as more accurate
test results!
3
Volume 3 | Issue 2
J Psychol Neurosci; 2021 www.unisciencepub.com
References
1. [a b] Tavakol, Mohsen & Dennich, Reg (2011). ”Making
sense of Cronbach’s alpha” (på engelska). International
Journal of Medical Education 2: sid. 53-55. doi:10.5116/
ijme.4dfb.8dfd. ISSN 2042-6372.
2. Cronbach, Lee J. (1951). ”Coecient alpha and the
internal structure of tests” (på engelska). Psychometrika
16 (3): sid. 297-334. ISSN 0033-3123.
3. Ritter, Nicola L. (2010). ”CRONBACH’S ALPHA
1 Understanding a Widely Misunderstood Statistic:
Cronbach’s α” (på engelska). Orleans: Texas A&M
University. Läst 18 december 2015.
4. Cho, E. (2016). Making reliability reliable: A systematic
approach to reliability coecients. Organizational
Research Methods, 19(4), 651–682.https://doi.
org/10.1177/1094428116656239
5. Cronbach, L. J. (1978). Citation classics. Current Contents,
13, 263. Green, S. B., & Yang, Y. (2009). Commentary on
coecient alpha: A cautionary tale. Psychometrika, 74(1),
121–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9098-4
6. Jump up to:a b c d e f g h Revelle, W., & Zinbarg, R.
E. (2009). Coecients alpha, beta, omega, and the glb:
Comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74(1), 145–154.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9102-z
7. Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k Cho, E., & Kim, S. (2015).
Cronbach’s coecient alpha: Well known but poorly
understood. Organizational Research Methods, 18(2),
207–230.https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114555994
8. Validation & reliability – Entrepreneur prole test
9. Internal consistency - Wikipedia
10. Q&A – Entrepreneur prole test
11. Is It Possible to Change Your Personality Type? |
16Personalities
Other sources about Cronbach alpha
1. McNeish, D. (2017). Thanks coecient alpha, we’ll take
it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 412–433.
https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144 pos
2. Jump up to:a b c Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2017).
Thanks coecient alpha, we still need you! Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 79(1), 200–210. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0013164417725127
Personality Type Indicator (my-personality-test.com)
Free personality test, type descriptions, relationship and career
advice | 16Personalities
Reliability and Validity | 16Personalities
General about International Personality Item IPIP Home (ori.
org)
Copyright: ©2021 Stefan Lindstrom. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in anymedium,
provided the original author and source are credited.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
The current conventions for test score reliability coefficients are unsystematic and chaotic. Reliability coefficients have long been denoted using names that are unrelated to each other, with each formula being generated through different methods, and they have been represented inconsistently. Such inconsistency prevents organizational researchers from understanding the whole picture and misleads them into using coefficient alpha unconditionally. This study provides a systematic naming convention, formula-generating methods, and methods of representing each of the reliability coefficients. This study offers an easy-to-use solution to the issue of choosing between coefficient alpha and composite reliability. This study introduces a calculator that enables its users to obtain the values of various multidimensional reliability coefficients with a few mouse clicks. This study also presents illustrative numerical examples to provide a better understanding of the characteristics and computations of reliability coefficients.
Article
Full-text available
This study disproves the following six common misconceptions about coefficient alpha: (a) Alpha was first developed by Cronbach. (b) Alpha equals reliability. (c) A high value of alpha is an indication of internal consistency. (d) Reliability will always be improved by deleting items using ‘‘alpha if item deleted.’’ (e) Alpha should be greater than or equal to .7 (or, alternatively, .8). (f) Alpha is the best choice among all published reliability coefficients. This study discusses the inaccuracy of each of these misconceptions and provides a correct statement. This study recommends that the assumptions of unidimensionality and tau-equivalency be examined before the application of alpha and that structural equation modeling (SEM)–based reliability estimators be substituted for alpha when one of these conditions is not satisfied. This study also provides formulas for SEM-based reliability estimators that do not rely on matrix notation and step-by-step explanations for the computation of SEM-based reliability estimates.
Article
Full-text available
Medical educators attempt to create reliable and valid tests and questionnaires in order to enhance the accuracy of their assessment and evaluations. Validity and reliability are two fundamental elements in the evaluation of a measurement instrument. Instruments can be conventional knowledge, skill or attitude tests, clinical simulations or survey questionnaires. Instruments can measure concepts, psychomotor skills or affective values. Validity is concerned with the extent to which an instrument measures what it is intended to measure. Reliability is concerned with the ability of an instrument to measure consistently.1 It should be noted that the reliability of an instrument is closely associated with its validity. An instrument cannot be valid unless it is reliable. However, the reliability of an instrument does not depend on its validity.2 It is possible to objectively measure the reliability of an instrument and in this paper we explain the meaning of Cronbach’s alpha, the most widely used objective measure of reliability.
Article
Full-text available
There are three fundamental problems in Sijtsma (Psychometrika, 2008): (1) contrary to the name, the glb is not the greatest lower bound of reliability but rather is systematically less than ω t (McDonald, Test theory: A unified treatment, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, 1999), (2) we agree with Sijtsma that when considering how well a test measures one concept, α is not appropriate, but recommend ω t rather than the glb, and (3) the end user needs procedures that are readily available in open source software. Keywordsreliability-internal consistency-homogeneity-test theory-coefficient alpha-coefficient omega-coefficient beta
Article
The general use of coefficient alpha to assess reliability should be discouraged on a number of grounds. The assumptions underlying coefficient alpha are unlikely to hold in practice, and violation of these assumptions can result in nontrivial negative or positive bias. Structural equation modeling was discussed as an informative process both to assess the assumptions underlying coefficient alpha and to estimate reliability Keywordsreliability-coefficient alpha-violation of assumptions-structural equation modeling
Article
A general formula (α) of which a special case is the Kuder-Richardson coefficient of equivalence is shown to be the mean of all split-half coefficients resulting from different splittings of a test. α is therefore an estimate of the correlation between two random samples of items from a universe of items like those in the test. α is found to be an appropriate index of equivalence and, except for very short tests, of the first-factor concentration in the test. Tests divisible into distinct subtests should be so divided before using the formula. The index [`(r)]ij\bar r_{ij} , derived from α, is shown to be an index of inter-item homogeneity. Comparison is made to the Guttman and Loevinger approaches. Parallel split coefficients are shown to be unnecessary for tests of common types. In designing tests, maximum interpretability of scores is obtained by increasing the first-factor concentration in any separately-scored subtest and avoiding substantial group-factor clusters within a subtest. Scalability is not a requisite.
CRONBACH'S ALPHA 1 Understanding a Widely Misunderstood Statistic: Cronbach's α" (på engelska)
  • Nicola L Ritter
Ritter, Nicola L. (2010). "CRONBACH'S ALPHA 1 Understanding a Widely Misunderstood Statistic: Cronbach's α" (på engelska). Orleans: Texas A&M University. Läst 18 december 2015.
Thanks coefficient alpha, we still need you! Educational and Psychological Measurement
  • D Mcneish
McNeish, D. (2017). Thanks coefficient alpha, we'll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 412-433. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144 pos 2. Jump up to:a b c Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2017). Thanks coefficient alpha, we still need you! Educational and Psychological Measurement, 79(1), 200-210. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0013164417725127