Personality Tests - Science topic

Aptitude-Test.com

Hi Elnaz (and others), I'm wondering about a few things regarding your request and proposal. I'm not a psychometrician but I've been using, studying and teaching about the MBTI since 1989. There have been several Forms in this period and different manuals, as well as different scoring systems and some different items. So my first question is what MBTI Form you are intending to use and do you know how it works?

For instance, the MBTI is an indicator and it doesn't create the psychological types of Jung. It's a category sort with particular presumptions, described in the relevant manual. I'm unsure how you can make behavioural claims simply dealing with the items.

As personal examples, I answer all of the extraverted-introverted items for I, yet I have no problem giving public talks or running workshops or seminars; I answer all the sensing-intuition items for intuition, but I greatly dislike theory for theory's sake and think facts are important. So there's a bit of nuance, and things like age, gender, education and so on can be important variables. This is why the MBTI results aren't standalone and require appropriate feedback that isn't merely telling someone their results.

These types do not represent a theory of behaviour, because people can do the same thing, for different reasons, and they're about preference, which means that I can prefer to do something, for instance regarding Covid isolation, but there are other factors (living circumstances, support group, open space, employment etc etc.) that may make me decide to do something else, or nothing. The MBTI is also not a clinical instrument and has no lie scale.

So I would be interested in your rationale.

Of course, a person can identify themselves as a particular psychological type without taking the MBTI or other reliable and valid instrument.

I can also refer you to someone psychometrically knowledgeable who has worked on the MBTI revisions, if you wish.

Regards

Peter

It is treated statistically by means of the SPSS statistical bag

So the survey is completed in the same language both times, with the only difference being the 'manipulation' of asking them to think of how they self-perceive when in different cultural contexts? Then yes, it is a repeated-measures design.

The sample is dependent, yes, which gains you a lot of statistical power by controlling for across-subject variability.

The Wilcoxon, like other nonparametric tests, does not assume normally distributed data. These are useful significance tests when data violate the assumptions underlying the more common procedures, such as t-tests and ANOVA. So it is up to you and your advisors whether to go ahead with a repeated-measures ANOVA (ignoring the fact that the data aren't normally distributed) or use an analogous nonparametric procedure - though I would recommend the latter, unless a transformation would render the data more normal. (Sometimes a square-root or logarithmic transformation does the trick.)

I wish someone else would chime in here, though. I do not pretend to be a serious expert in these matters, and usually questions like yours get several answers. If a consensus emerges it is very comforting.

A personality is unique and has different skills. All people do not have the same skills and all persons cannot with training reach the same skills. We tested this on

training to perform laparoscopy. I attach our paper:

My first question concerns why you would want to use MBTI in the first place. What will a few questions about the MBTI "dimensions" add to your research?

My understanding is that the MBTI is more lore than science in that many of the assertions about the MBTI do not hold up to rigorous analyses.

If I am wrong about the research about the MBTI, perhaps someone can provide clarification.

Dear Mr Kahlil, maybe this can give some thoughts when it comes around to these tests. see at pdf, or DOI:

Stephen Joy , back-translating, Good thought, I actually do that maybe whit out thinking of it this way with 2 persons.. But as a none native English, I "crossfire" it so to speak in language translating programs. First Swedish into English and back again from English to Swedish. (some tímes even over again) to check if the context remains or changes. It gives one a great input in nuances within the language. I.e., like differences in using therefore versus therefor or even there-fore.

It's google forms for your convenience.

If you have more than two, then use a repeated measures ANOVA

Please have look on our(Eminent Biosciences (EMBS)) collaborations.. and let me know if interested to associate with us

Here is our lab page: https://www.eminentbio.com/home/members

Here is our publication: https://www.eminentbio.com/home/Publication

Our recent publications In collaborations with industries and academia in India and world wide.

EMBS publication In association with Universidad Tecnológica Metropolitana, Santiago, Chile. Publication Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33397265/

EMBS publication In association with Moscow State University , Russia. Publication Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32967475/

EMBS publication In association with Icahn Institute of Genomics and Multiscale Biology,, Mount Sinai Health System, Manhattan, NY, USA. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29199918

EMBS publication In association with University of Missouri, St. Louis, MO, USA. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30457050

EMBS publication In association with Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27852211

EMBS publication In association with ICMR- NIN(National Institute of Nutrition), Hyderabad Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23030611

EMBS publication In association with University of Minnesota Duluth, Duluth MN 55811 USA. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27852211

EMBS publication In association with University of Yaounde I, PO Box 812, Yaoundé, Cameroon. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30950335

EMBS publication In association with Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, PB, Brazil. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30693065

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and University of Yaoundé I, Yaoundé, Cameroon. Publication Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31210847/

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, 48080, Leioa, Spain. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27852204

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Publication Link: http://www.eurekaselect.com/135585

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and NIPER , Hyderabad, India. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29053759

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and Alagappa University, Tamil Nadu, India. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30950335

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad , India. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28472910

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and C.S.I.R – CRISAT, Karaikudi, Tamil Nadu, India. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30237676

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and Karpagam academy of higher education, Eachinary, Coimbatore , Tamil Nadu, India. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30237672

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and Ballets Olaeta Kalea, 4, 48014 Bilbao, Bizkaia, Spain. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29199918

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and Hospital for Genetic Diseases, Osmania University, Hyderabad - 500 016, Telangana, India. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28472910

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and School of Ocean Science and Technology, Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies, Panangad-682 506, Cochin, India. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27964704

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and CODEWEL Nireekshana-ACET, Hyderabad, Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26770024

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and Bharathiyar University, Coimbatore-641046, Tamilnadu, India. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27919211

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and LPU University, Phagwara, Punjab, India. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31030499

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and Department of Bioinformatics, Kerala University, Kerala. Publication Link: http://www.eurekaselect.com/135585

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and Gandhi Medical College and Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad 500 038, India. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27450915

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and National College (Affiliated to Bharathidasan University), Tiruchirapalli, 620 001 Tamil Nadu, India. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27266485

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and University of Calicut - 673635, Kerala, India. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23030611

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and NIPER, Hyderabad, India. ) Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29053759

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and King George's Medical University, (Erstwhile C.S.M. Medical University), Lucknow-226 003, India. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25579575

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and School of Chemical & Biotechnology, SASTRA University, Thanjavur, India Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25579569

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and Safi center for scientific research, Malappuram, Kerala, India. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30237672

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and Dept of Genetics, Osmania University, Hyderabad Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25248957

EMBS publication In association with Institute of Genetics and Hospital for Genetic Diseases, Osmania University, Hyderabad Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26229292

Sincerely,

Dr. Anuraj Nayarisseri

Principal Scientist & Director,

Eminent Biosciences.

Mob :+91 97522 95342

-and III-

The best Spanish Universities for the Area of Psychometry (also for Psychology in general) are:

Autonomous University of Madrid (UAM)

Complutense University of Madrid (UCM)

University of Barcelona (UB)

Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB)

University of Granada (UGR)

University of Valencia (UV)

University of Santiago de Compostela (USC)

University of Seville (US)

University of the Basque Country (UPV / EHU)

University of Zaragoza (UniZar)

Many: In fact, the history of Statistics has been closely linked to that of Psychology in order to meet the needs of Psychometry ... in such a framework, and without being exhaustive, we could cite -among many others-: Francis Galton - Psychologist "avant la lettre", considered the father of Differential Psychology and the first Intelligence Tests, K. Pearson, William Gosset (Student), R. Fisher and E. Pearson (son of K. Pearson); The latter worked in collaboration with the Polish mathematician Jerzy Neyman, the first Pearson, in addition to producing the formula for calculating the correlation, is the creator of the "chi" or "Chi square" test. Gosset created the T-test in its original form, Fisher further developed such a test by baptizing it as “the Student's T”, because the terms of the employment contract between Gosset and the Guinness brewery in Dublin could only sign with his real name the documents prepared for She thus used the pseudonym "Student" to sign her articles on statistics. In addition to developing the famous Student's T, Fisher created the analysis of variance, which was later christened the F test, in her honor; Charles Spearman, a psychologist who made important contributions to psychology and statistics, developing Factor Analysis and the Correlation that bears his name; Louis Leon Thurstone; Amun; Yela and many others.

Do you have the complete "specimen bag" of said Test ?; At least, as it is marketed in Spain by the TEA (Associated Technical Specialists -AST in English-) house, this entails, as with all tests, its pertinent correction template, by virtue of which, it is corrected by adding in each subscale a point in each item marked on the Answer Sheet, according to said Template; although it can also be corrected by computer, with the "ad hoc" keys / program. The Manual, as is always the case and in all Psychometric Tests, does not indicate the scores obtained, etc. For this, there are the indicated templates or the program for the computer.

Sorry i don't have

I am sorry

Best regards

Self-report measure assessing the general traits like the influential five-factor model (FFM) of personality: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (John & Srivastava, 1999; McCrae, Costa, & Martin, 2005) are preferable to measure personality of an individual.

thank you !

For what ever reason, I got to know your question just today - means far to late.

However, you could have been a bit smarter and sent an email asking me directly. We translated or prepared the TCI-R for publication, published about the comparison between the German version of the TCI and the TCI-R in Psychological Reports. However, the 5-point Likert type answer model did not work well (neither in German nor in Swedish). Too many midpoint answers making the 5-point answer model highly questionable. Cloninger never published a detailed item analysis neither for the TCI nor for the TCI-R, as far as I know. Therefore, Sven Brândström and I decided that we should work with the true-false answer model for the TCI-R as well. Bob Cloninger did not like autonomous decisions. Some German colleagues are still working with this version of the TCI-R since this is the latest one with available German norms. Best Jörg Richter

The best way to establish convergent validity is to obtain multiple raters (e.g., child, mother, father, sibling) and test for convergence across these different data sources.

you can find it here : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bbbn8kSBmcVObafdzAQEipRBc4SVqwtb/view

Hi Robert

My one student is conducting research on role of family factors on juvenile delinquent behavior in Pakistan. I wonder how much your instrument will be helpful in using it in the field.

You can share it on sanaullah.panezai@gmail.com

Orthogonality is a mathematical term that translates to the measurement of a multidimensional construct, like personality, for the purpose of simply showing that each of the Big 5 traits is distinct and does not conceptually collapse into another trait.

If two variables, say, conscientiousness and neuroticism, were so correlated that one can be linearly predicted from the other, we would have no empirical basis on which to claim the two were separate traits.

Contrast orthogonality with collinearity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicollinearity

Human body spray can be helpful.

Richard, this is an important area of research. You may wish to look at the various tests adopted in this area by Matsumoto and Huang (2013) and, more interestingly, to examine the extent to which they have been ascertained to be valid. Very best of luck in your research.

Each dimension should have a score. With tests it is always vital and god practice to consult the admin.scoring instructions. Also, to look at how other researchers have used the test.

The NEO-FFI and NEO-PI are proprietary instruments, under copyright and offered for sale by the publisher ( https://www.parinc.com/Products/Pkey/274 ). You can't just post copies online. Here are your options:

1. Purchase copies from the publisher. You can administer the test on a computer (rather than paper-and-pencil) for a few dollars each, but I think you need to buy the Manual first. You might check with a professor to see if your department has the Manual and would be willing to use their authorization to buy copies.

2. Use a different test, one that is in the public domain or has been made available by its authors. The International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) may be helpful. I am not totally happy with their items, but the scores seem to correlate well with those from other five-factor inventories.

You can do it with gate recognition/face expression data, for which you can use SVM or Bayesian classifier.

Dear Yi Li,

first you have to decide what statistical test would be good to answer your question. Linear mixed models may be a good solution, if you're expecting to see a linear relation between the RTs and and the personality test score (I'll call it PT), as I understand this what you're after. You need to have some hypothesis you are trying to test, so you probably have an idea of how conditions (triangle_absent_4 etc) would influence this relation. Depending on a software, then you have to prepare the data and transform it to an appropriate form. For example, in R for linear regression you will need a long format, so your data will look something like that:

cond RT PT

subject1 c1 123 9

subject1 c2 158 9

subject2 c1 445 11

subject2 c1 456 11

subject3 c1 ... ...

etc.

then you build a model GIVEN your hypothesis and predictions. For example, if you're hypothesising that higher PT scores will improve RTs and this is modulated by a condition in a such a way that you expect an interaction between PT and condition, you would like to build something like:

lme4::lmer(RT ~PT * cond + (1|subject) + (1|cond), data = mydata, REML = F)

Of course, remember to check the assumptions for this test, make sure the link is indeed linear, and decide on the random structure based on your design.

There are plenty of tutorials and sources online to do that.

Good luck!

Could the Immersive Tendency Questionnaire by Witmer & Singer work for you alternatively?

https://marketinginvolvement.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/itq-e-itq-f.pdf

thanks of you .are there the articles about the test ?

group researh should responsible for all people engage in research that divide works to per person and researchers practice to itself task .if group trust to together better can work and publish good article .

Different species but the Vincent Wildlife Trust did work on pine marten personality traits to inform which individuals might be best used in reintroduction projects. Contact information here:

The paper is very interesting and I think the IS I could help in discovering significant differences between abusers and non abusers in their preferential intellectual styles. The tool is ready in the form of a software program and available for research in Arabic and English.

Thank you Dr Arben, Dr Hassan, Dr Ludwig and Dr Francis. Which type of tests should be considered reliable fully? This is because there are many indicators and many types of personality tests.

How do I conduct qualitative test on estimation of test results?

Pl share your notion in detail if possible

Stephen, I certainly would be open to collaboration on our TAT studies which appear to be somewhat similar in overall scope. My key interest is in developing psychotherapy outcome predictors that do not rely upon client self-report nor upon time-intensive examiner scoring and interpretation, i.e., performance based tests. Please feel free to e-mail me back channel at rhawkins@utexas.edu. Thanks!

I do agree with earlier answers,but as the researcher mentioned cyber security work one need to go for each dimension and its interpretation with respect to  PR and T score.i did use the same test for my research purpose.

Approaching this question from the point of view of artificial intelligence engineering, it's clear that there will be a variety of designed processes in any AI system contributing to the overall pattern(s) of behavior that we loosely call "intelligence". A better and more powerful  design for any of these processes will tend to enhance the system's "intelligence".  For example I am particularly interested in the processes of abstraction (discarding relatively unimportant details) and planning (including plan formation, revision and execution) -- it is intelligent to plan at the highest level of abstraction that is effective in the particular context being addressed.

So how do we make humans better at abstraction and at planning?

Cheers

Jim

To me, this represents risk-taking behavior -- that is, when students know that they will not be personally affected, they are more willing to consider the most dangerous outcomes even when it may harm others.  They do not, thankfully, seem to choose these dangerous outcomes when it represents a personal danger.  All of us are self-serving so the real question for me is under what circumstances will students consider the well-being of others over their self-interest -- and when do the response become more altruistic?

In case you decide that trait measures could be useful: 

Development of the Self-Curiosity Attitude-Interest scale.

By Aschieri, Filippo; Durosini, Ilaria

TPM-Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, Vol 22(3), Sep 2015, 327-347.

Even though introspection, reflection, and mentalization are important processes in clinical practice, no self-report measure has been developed to address the psychological construct of self-curiosity. This paper addresses this disparity, and provides a new self-report measure on this topic and data on its nomological network. Curiosity about self was initially conceptualized as the desire that people have to explore and understand themselves and their psychological functioning beyond what they already know about themselves. The manuscript presents data from three independent samples used to build the Self- Curiosity Attitude-Interest (SCAI) scale. Data show that the SCAI comprises two dimensions: attitude toward self-curiosity (cognitive propensity toward exploring one’s own inner world) and interest in increasing knowledge of self (emotional/motivational pull to understand oneself better). An independent sample shows good internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and evidence of construct validity of the SCAI. This paper discusses the utility of the SCAI in clinical practice and research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Interest and Deprivation Type Epistemic Curiosity Model Measure

By Litman, Jordan A.; Mussel, Patrick

2013. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/t27877-000

Construct: Epistemic Curiosity

The Interest and Deprivation Type Epistemic Curiosity Model Measure was developed as part of a study to evaluate of the interest and deprivation type epistemic curiosity (EC), the desire for new knowledge aimed at stimulating pleasurable feelings of situational interest (I-type) or relieving negative affective conditions of feeling deprived of knowledge (D-type). Adolescents and adults responded to German translations of the 10-item Epistemic Curiosity Scale (ECS) and the 15-item Curiosity as a Feeling-of-Deprivation Scale (CFDS). The ESC consists of items assessing (1) taking pleasure in new ideas (Diversive) and pleasure in discovering how things work (Specific). The CDFS consists of 3 subscales assessing (1) desire to increase competence, (2) intolerance for unsolved problems, and (3) persistence in seeking out information. Confirmatory factor analysis resulted in a 10-item scale with 2 distinct factors. Consistent with previous research findings for the English and Chinese EC Scales (Huang et al., 2010; Litman, 2008), the 5 items that comprised the ECS-Diversive subscale (alpha = .77) were the best I-type EC measures, and 5 CFDS-Persistence subscale items (alpha = .78) were found to be the best measures of D-type EC for the German versions as well. Evidence of convergent and discriminant validity were also found. (PsycTESTS Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Development and validation of the German Work-Related Curiosity Scale.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000098

By Mussel, Patrick; Spengler, Maik; Litman, Jordan A.; Schuler, Heinz

European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Vol 28(2), 2012, 109-117.

Curiosity, a personality trait underlying behavioral tendencies related to knowledge acquisition, learning, and thinking, can be expected to be of high relevance in the world of work. There is, however, to date no work-related curiosity measure. The present article reports results regarding the development and validation of the new 10-item Work-Related Curiosity Scale. Based on two studies, the measure had a one-factor solution, acceptable internal consistency, and expected construct validity. In Study 2, incremental criterion-related validities were found over and above five general curiosity scales (ΔR2 between .12 and .15), which is in line with the frame-of-reference approach underlying the development of the scale. Interestingly, the lack of evidence for criterion-related validity in Study 1 indicates that these results do not generalize across positions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Work-Related Curiosity Scale

By Mussel, Patrick; Spengler, Maik; Litman, Jordan A.; Schuler, Heinz

2012. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/t29756-000

Construct: Epistemic Curiosity

The 10-item Work-Related Curiosity Scale (Mussell et al., 2012) was developed as an assessment of curiosity that taps behaviors that are especially relevant to the workplace. Based on an agreed-upon definition of curiosity in its epistemic form, 2201 job-related items were developed. Expert evaluation reduced the pool to 38 items. Employees at a German financial service organization completed this scale, and items for the final version were selected based on high discriminatory power, high convergent validity with openness for experience, and content validity. The final 10-item scale, completed by university students, assesses enjoyment of activities like seeking information, knowledge acquisition, learning and thinking, as well as persisting in these activities in exploratory behaviors until the desired information is obtained or the problems have been solved. Norm values on scale level across two studies: M = 52.6, SD = 7.89 (N = 644). Gender-specific norms: female: M = 52.1, SD = 7.83 (N = 343); male: M = 53.1, SD = 8.14 (N = 301). The final scale had acceptable reliability in terms of internal consistency and expected construct validity. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses revealed that a one-dimensional solution explained variance reasonably well. Incremental criterion-related validities were found over and above 5 general curiosity scales. (PsycTESTS Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Curiosity and Exploration Inventory--II (CEI-II)

By Kashdan, Todd B.; Gallagher, Matthew W.; Silvia, Paul J.; Winterstein, Beate P.; Breen, William E.; Terhar, Daniel; Steger, Michael F.

2009. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/t09556-000

Construct: Curiosity

The Curiosity and Exploration Inventory--II (CEI-II, Kashdan et al., 2009) was developed in order to improve upon the original Curiosity and Exploration Inventory (CEI; Kashdan, Rose, & Fincham, 2004) and provide a brief, reliable, valid measure of curiosity that expands the breadth of the construct. A preliminary pool of 36 items was generated and contained revised versions of many of the items of the original CEI. It was generated based on the a priori hypothesis that there may be three facets of curiosity: exploring or stretching, absorption, and embracing uncertainty. Through an iterative process, absorption was removed from the CEI-II item pool to improve reliability and validity. Using a sample of 311 undergraduates, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted and produced two factors (eigenvalues of 3.99 and 1.40) that were clearly interpretable as the stretching and embracing facets of curiosity. The authors then selected the best 10 of the 36 items, resulting in the revised CEI. The CEI-II was determined to have good internal reliability and results of a confirmatory factor analysis provided evidence of validity. (PsycTESTS Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved)

Epistemic Curiosity Questionnaire (EC)

By Litman, Jordan A.

2008. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/t11264-000

Construct: Epistemic Curiosity

The Epistemic Curiosity Questionnaire (EC Questionnaire; Litman, 2008) was developed to assess the desire for knowledge that motivates individuals to learn new ideas, eliminate information-gaps, and solve intellectual problems. The Epistemic Curiosity Questionnaire included the scale items from the 10-item Epistemic Curiosity Scale (ECS; Litman & Spielberger, 2003) and the 15-item Curiosity as a Feeling-of-Deprivation Scale (CFDS; Litman & Jimerson, 2004). Undergraduate students were instructed to report how they "generally feel" regarding each item statement by rating themselves on the following 4-point frequency scale: 1 = Almost Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Almost Always. Exploratory factor analyses of the ECS and CFDS subscales yielded two factors; the first (I-type) involved pleasure associated with discovering new ideas, while the second (D-type) emphasized spending time and effort to acquire a specific answer or solution. Alphas were acceptable for both of the subscales. (PsycTESTS Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

The Measurement and Conceptualization of Curiosity.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/GNTP.167.2.117-135

By Reio Jr., Thomas G.; Petrosko, Joseph M.; Wiswell, Albert K.; Thongsukmag, Juthamas

The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, Vol 167(2), Jun 2006, 117-135.

In this study, the authors tried various methods to measure and conceptualize curiosity. A sample of 369 education students (103 men, 266 women) who were attending universities on the East Coast of the United States completed 5 paper-and-pencil curiosity measures in 1 of their classes. Using confirmatory factor analysis, the authors found that the data best fit a 3-factor curiosity model consisting of cognitive curiosity, physical thrill seeking, and social thrill seeking. These findings supported the development of new instruments that specifically measured those 3 curiosity types, new empirical research predicting meaningful curiosity-related outcomes, and subsequent theory building concerning how and why curiosity is a fundamental part of optimal human functioning. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Hi Calli,

You ask if anyone have a short scale that measures morality.

Any answer to your question greatly depends on many issues. Age of individuals whose moral behavior/thinking you want to assess, and the type of morality (e.g., justice-oriented a la Kohlberg, or care-oriented a la Gilligan) you are interested in, are but two examples of such issues. 

I know of several scales that try to evaluate the individual's moral reasoning. I say to evaluate or assess, not to measure, because, I think, no psychological instrument measures the individual's competence in any psychological domain. To measure means to attain a degree of rigor that it is not possible in psychology whatever. This rigor only exists in the so called "hard" sciences, as is the case of physics, geometry, mathematics, and the like. Note, for example, that psychology is pervaded by many Likert-scales, which are generally based on self-reports. The results obtained are often treated as if they were, say, interval, not categorical or ordinal, results. Note also that in a Likert-scale, a given score, 30, for example, can be obtained by answering differently to the several items of such a scale. This clearly shows that such a scale does not really give us interval data, even though such data are often subject to parametric statistical analyses, such as ANOVAS, MANCOVAS, and the like. This statistical procedure gives us an illusion of rigor that does not exist in psychology (see, for example, Paul Meehl, 1978). As Wittgenstein once remarked in his famous Philosophical Investigations, in psychological there are experimental methods, but conceptual confusion. 

With these caveats in mind, I turn to your question. Kohlberg's interview and scoring system is perhaps the most known and deep tool to assess the individual's moral reasoning/behavior. I say behavior, and not only reasoning, because no behavior can be considered moral or immoral when we do not take into account the moral reasons underlying such a behavior. Kohlberg's verbal interview and scoring system is, for instance, only at the reach of Kohlbergian experts and consumes much time and effort. Because of this, James Rest put forth his Defining Issues Test (i.e., DIT), which is relatively easy to apply and is an objective, and group-administered  questionnaire .The DIT 1 (and now the DIT2)  is, nowadays, the most used tool to assess one's moral reasoning. Note that Kohlberg's method is difficult to apply to individuals under 10-11 years of age, and Rest's test, to individuals under 12-13 years of age. Neither Kohlberg's method nor Rest's test are, as it were, short "scales". In addition to this, both tools are mainly justice-oriented and appeal to hypothetical moral dilemmas.  Because of this, Carol Gilligan (1982) advanced a care- oriented tool. This tool is not either, so to say, a short "scale", nor is it suitable for children under adolescence. However, it deals with real-life, instead of hypothetical, moral conflicts, choices and dilemmas.

The Piagetian moral stories (see Piaget, 1932, The moral judgment of the child) may be considered a short "scale" of children's moral heteronomy and moral autonomy, a "scale” suitable for children aged between 4 and 12 years.

To assess children's sense of justice you can employ the following scale: The moral development scale by W. Kurtines and J. Pimm (1983). The moral development scale: A Piagetian measure of moral judgment. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43, 89-105. See also Pimm, J., Kurtines, W., & Ruffy, M. (1982). Moral development in contemporary American and Swiss children. Archives de Psychologie, 50, 225-235, and Kurtines, W., and Pimm, J. (1983): The moral development scale: Unpublished Manual. As its title shows, this scale is a Piagetian-oriented scale. It is suitable for children aged between 3-4/9-10 years and allows you to easily classify a child as oriented to moral autonomy or to moral heteronomous.  Although being a Piagetian-oriented scale, the scale is standardized, and hence, it also allows you to attribute a numeric score (from 0 to 30) having to do with the child's sense of justice. In Pimm, Kurtines, and Ruffy's words, the scale allows us to see "... to what extent [the child being interviewed] gave up of his/her moral realism and acquired a sense of justice" (1982, p. 226). More importantly, the moral development scale is, say, referred to a criterion, not to a norm. Note that the majority of mental tests are referred to a norm, not to a criterion. Developmental tasks, such as Piagetian tasks are always referred to a developmental criterion, not to a norm

Other RG researchers could suggest the moral-conventional transgression task by Turiel and his colleagues. This task, however, assesses the child's distinction between morality and social convention. As this distinction appears even in children as young as 3-year-olds, and such a distinction does not change over time, I do not see such task as a suitable task to assess the subject's sense of morality.

Nancy Eisenberg (1982) has developed a questionnaire to assess the individual’s prosocial reasoning. Contrary to moral reasoning a la Kohlberg or perfect and negative duties a la Kant,  for example, Eisenberg’s questionnaire deals with positive moral reasoning and behavior (e.g., sharing, helping, donating, comforting), not with negative immoral behavior such as hitting, lying, stealing and the like.  Eisenberg has distinguished among several categories of prosocial reasoning, such as hedonistic reasoning, others’ needs-oriented reasoning, social approval- oriented reasoning, and so forth.

A way of assessing one’s moral reasoning can also be found in the literature on the “happy-unhappy victimizer phenomenon”. In studies on this phenomenon, there are a victimizer who gets some tangible outcomes after committing an immoral act (e.g., to steal a chocolate bar from another individual) and an innocent victim, who is deprived of some of his/her goods (e.g., a chocolate bar).  Participants in such studies are asked to attribute positive (immoral) emotions (e.g, the victimizer feels good and happy because s/he got what s/he wanted) or negative (and moral) emotions (e.g., the victimizer feels bad and unhappy because s/he committed an immoral act) to the transgressor at hand. Findings have generally found that young children (under 5 years, for instance) tend to attribute positive emotions to the victimizer, whereas older children tend to attribute negative emotions to the victimizer at hand.

Of course, there are many other ways to assess one’s moral thinking and behavior. I am fully aware that I only pointed to some of them. Even so, I hope that my considerations are of help to you.   

Best regards.   

A good question! Hope for good answers!

Very interesting turns for this research.  Thank you, everyone.  I appreciate your paper Jessica.  My main objective is to show possible correlations between temperaments and personality development which is why I was originally using personality indicators.  Since Thomas and Chess are unsupported, I will investigate the 3 temperaments, Jessica.  

Thank you again everyone

I think much hinges on what sort of guilt you're thinking of. For example, you could be hypothesizing that anticipatory guilt (i.e., "I'll feel terrible if I hurt someone") would act to inhibit bullying. Or that some people who are plagued with guilt might engage in bullying as a way of venting their negative affect/inflicting pain on others to compensate for the pain they feel. (Actually, in that case I'd lean more toward shame than guilt as a factor.) Or that some victims of bullying feel guilty over having been "punked out," so to speak. And these are such different constructs that your choice of guilt scale would be different in each case. 

That said, I agree that the GASP is one possibility. I'd advise administering the whole thing (it's only 16 items, and you can't be sure the shame ones won't turn out to be relevant). Here is another: The Brief Shame and Guilt Questionnaire for Children (just 12 items!). 

Hi Cecile. Thank you so much for this. Unfortunately its in French and i don't know French. Perhaps if you send me the titles i could look in my online library to see if they have them translated in English.

Stephen, the other thing I would try is to contact the research branch of the New York State Psychiatric Institute where the instrument was developed, which has a link at http://nyspi.org/nyspi/research

If you search for "archives" on their site, that might lead you to the person in charge of the archives, who can probably figure out if they have a copy in their archive. I looked it up for you, and the contact person is Alfa Garcia

(646) 774-8613

I've found that reference librarians and archivists are generally happy to help. Good luck!

I am comfortable using both 16pf 5th ed and manchester oersonality questionnaire

Essentials of 16PF assessment.

Essentials of psychological assessment series.

By Cattell, Heather E. P.; Schuerger, James M.

2003.

Essentials of 16PF® Assessment is a valuable guide to administering, scoring, and interpreting this popular measure of normal personality. Using the proven Essentials format, Cattell and Schuerger clearly describe how to use the instrument; provide critical information about its validity and reliability; and include helpful guidelines for using the instrument effectively with individuals, couples, and families, in settings ranging from clinical and forensic to corporate environments and other workplaces. Essentials of 16PF® Assessment provides comprehensive coverage of test administration, scoring, and interpretation. As well, this informative resource provides expert assessment of the method's relative strengths and weaknesses, valuable advice on its clinical applications, and illuminating sample cases. This book is designed to help professionals quickly acquire the knowledge and skills they need to make optimal use of a major psychological assessment instrument. Each concise chapter features numerous callout boxes highlighting key concepts, bulleted points, and extensive illustrative material, as well as test questions that help you gauge and reinforce your understanding of the information covered. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

The Sixteen Personality Factor (16PF) Questionnaire.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1185-4_10

Understanding psychological assessment.

By Cattell, Heather E. P.

Dorfman, William I. (Ed); Hersen, Michel (Ed), (2001). Understanding psychological assessment. Perspectives on individual differences., (pp. 187-215). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, xii, 380 pp.

Describes the development, administration, scoring, and interpretation of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) Questionnaire. This normal range measure of personality can be used to comprehensively assess an individual's enduring personality make-up, rather than merely provide fragmentary information about symptomatology. The 1st section briefly describes the development of the 16PF test from basic research onto the structure of personality, including the discovery of the original Big-Five Factors. Next, the simple administration and scoring of the test are described. The rest of this chapter focuses on providing a sequence of interpretative steps to aid in 16PF interpretation. A case study of a 23-yr-old male illustrates how the test can be used to provide a comprehensive understanding of an individual from the beginning of the therapeutic process. It demonstrates how, particularly in a managed care setting, this information can be very effective in helping the clinician to place the presenting problem in context, develop empathy and rapport, and develop a treatment plan and appropriate therapeutic interventions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

The validity (statistical validity and test validity) of the MBTI as a psychometric instrument has been the subject of much criticism.

It has been estimated that between a third and a half of the published material on the MBTI has been produced for the special conferences of the Center for the Application of Psychological Type (which provide the training in the MBTI, and are funded by sales of the MBTI) or as papers in the Journal of Psychological Type(which is edited and supported by Myers–Briggs advocates and by sales of the indicator).[43] It has been argued that this reflects a lack of critical scrutiny.[43] Many of the studies that endorse MBTI are methodologically weak or unscientific.[9] A 1996 review by Gardner and Martinko concluded: "It is clear that efforts to detect simplistic linkages between type preferences and managerial effectiveness have been disappointing. Indeed, given the mixed quality of research and the inconsistent findings, no definitive conclusion regarding these relationships can be drawn."[44][9]

Psychometric specialist Robert Hogan wrote that "Most personality psychologists regard the MBTI as little more than an elaborate Chinese fortune cookie..

Dear Yasir,

For your purpose you may use the Myers Briggs Test! Theres english version on internet..

I hope useful for you.

Kind regards.

Dear Gilad, 

here is the answer in this link:

Hello Ruveyda

These may be relevant, but not very recent:

Visser, D., & Du Toit, J. M. (2004). Using the Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ) for measuring broad traits. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 30(4), p-65.

Lievens, F., Harris, M. M., Van Keer, E., & Bisqueret, C. (2003). Predicting cross-cultural training performance: the validity of personality, cognitive ability, and dimensions measured by an assessment center and a behavior description interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 476.

Martin, B. A., Bowen, C. C., & Hunt, S. T. (2002). How effective are people at faking on personality questionnaires?. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(2), 247-256.

Very best wishes with your paper,

Mary

Go to Lew Goldberg's  International Personality Item Pool (http://ipip.ori.org)  to find the various public domain items organized by scale and construct.  The ipip items are a very important resource for serious personality measurement.  

For some examples of using IPIP based items, and item statistics on about 800 of these items for about 20K people, see 

@article{condon:jopd:15,

Author = {David M. Condon and William Revelle},

Journal = {Journal of Open Psychology Data},

Month = {August},

Number = {1},

Title = {Selected personality data from the {SAPA-Project}: On the structure of phrased self-report items},

Volume = {3},

Year = {2015}}

DOI:  10.5334/jopd.al

For another example of using IPIP items in a large scale data collection study, see also the paper by Josh Wilt in the European Journal of Personality:

Research Article with Open Science Badge

Affect, Behaviour, Cognition and Desire in the Big Five: An Analysis of Item Content and Structure

Joshua Wilt1,* and

William Revelle2

Article first published online: 8 MAY 2015

Bill

DOI: 10.1002/per.2002

Thank you for completing it :) I am planning to publish my results here and possibly the published paper as well (however that takes time). If any of you need survey participants in the future, please contact me to return the favour :)

Ravi, I would also suggest you take a look at the NEO manual that comes with the test. The NEO has been widely used and tested for a long time, and the Five Factor Model is a very robust framework for the instrument. They will have plenty of references there, and you could then use those references to track down other studies.  

If you are constructing your own measure, then you may arrange the questions/items in any order you choose. In fact, it would be better to distribute the social desirability items randomly among the others - that way, their purpose will be less obvious.

There is only one limitation to bear in mind. If you are using existing questionnaires with known properties (e.g., internal consistency), then you cannot assume that those properties will hold when you disperse or otherwise rearrange the items. So let's say you have four personality scales and you weave them together to make a larger, more comprehensive personality test. You must calculate the reliability statistics for your sample - you can't just report the reliability from earlier studies. (Of course, we ought to do this all the time anyway, but many researchers take the short cut of reporting past reliability findings.)

Try the International Personality Item Pool: http://ipip.ori.org/ipip/ . It is a free resource that contains measures for many personality traits. You might look to the literature to figure out which personality variables make the most sense to include, given the goals of your study. The Five Factor Model is a good place to start, or you could be more targeted and look at individual traits.

To be honest, you should look for something other than the MBTI. http://skepdic.com/myersb.html The skeptics dictionary provides a well-researched history of the MBTI and the current problems with it.

Contemporary personality theory focuses on traits rather than types. The Five Factor Model is commonly used to assess personality traits. Several free FFM assessments can be found http://ipip.ori.org/ along with accompanying research on their development.

Cheers.

Thanks for the guidance!

Would Jung roll over in his grave? [I wrote this for my students some time ago. I hope it's at least entertaining].

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is one of the most popular ways of  measuring Carl Jung's psychological or personality types. The Master Practitioner Referral Network touts the MBTI as “the most trusted personality tool available today.” The test is widely used in business settings in  staff development workshops and retreats for team building, communication, leadership development, and conflict management, in new student orientation sessions at  some reputable universities, and in educational and vocational counselling. About  two million people take the MBTI every year. Unfortunately, this massive enterprise is supported by very little objective scientific evidence.  

Jung theorized about basic types of people on the basis of literature, mysticism, mythology, and clinical observation. His distinction of two basic attitudes, introversion and extraversion has held up well in modern factor analytic studies by Cattell, Eysenck, and others. Jung's additional four basic functions: sensing, intuition, thinking, and feeling, are self-evident. We all use our senses, intuition, thought, and emotions. However, his suggestion that each of us adopts one of these as our dominant mode of experience, resulting in eight possible personality types has been discredited. “Jung's eight personality types are created by dividing people into Extraversion-Introversion, Sensing-Intuitive, and Thinking-Feeling categories. In addition the test makers have included a Judgment-Perception division ... by dividing people along each of these four lines, test makers can identify 16 personality types. Thus, someone who is extraverted, intuitive, feeling, and perceptive is said to be distinctively different from someone who is extraverted, intuitive, thinking, and judging" (Burger, 2004. p. 133). 

 The notion of personality "types" is, in fact, not endorsed by research psychologists in personality. Rather, personality is measured along trait dimensionswhich are normally distributed. Forcing cut-off scores (types) onto normally distributed traits results in highly unreliable classification (McCarley & Clarskadon, 1983; Pittenger, 2005). 

 Many of you may have taken the MBTI and wondered about your resulting "type," e.g., "ISFP" or "ENTJ." Does it mean more than your astrological sign? Unfortunately, when pseudoscience is presented in scientific jargon people tend to believe it is valid. Studies on the validity of the MBTI categories show that they are consistent with neither Jungian theory nor data gathered from established personality inventories (Hunsley, Lee, & Wood, 2003, p. 61). One of the problems with the 16 categories of MBTI types is that error variance (a part of any test) resulting in scale scores close to the cut-offs frequently lead to classification errors(Hunsley, Lee, & Wood, 2003). As Burger points out, "a different answer on one or two items can throw a test taker into a different type. As a result, about a third of the people who take the Myers-Briggs test a second time come away with a different type classification, even when the gap between tests is only a few weeks" (p. 134). The test is unreliable. 

 With regard to validity, the MBTI has been criticized for its failure to relate to other well-established vocational preference, job performance, and personality measures. Additionally, as a test of global personality, the MBTI has been found to have limited correspondence with either of the two prevailing scientific models of personality structure, namely Eysenck's three-factor model and the five-factor model. “One can only conclude that the MBTI is insufficient as a contemporary measure of personality" (Hunsley, Lee, & Wood, 2003, p. 63-64). 

 Unfortunately, the MBTI “type” theory helped to spawn the learning-styles approach  in education, an equally muddle-headed yet wildly popular idea (see Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer & Bjork, 2009).

 Why then is the MBTI in such wide use? I have several hypotheses. For clinicians, it is just plain hard to learn from clinical experience: Clinicians are frequently isolated from feedback and are subject to common errors of thinking and judgment. Some of these errors are discussed in introductory psychology textbooks, e.g., hindsight bias, confirmatory bias, and illusory correlation. Many clinicians are simply not "scientifically-minded" (Garb & Boyle, 2003). The MBTI, however, is used very few clinical psychologists. Most MBTI practitioners have no training in psychological assessment, psychometrics, or personality psychology.

 Secondly, I believe that the ease with which the MBTI may be purchased leads poorly trained practitioners to make use of the test and build a consulting practice around this and other processes of dubious validity. The MBTI may be purchased by anyone who has either taken and passed a CPP-licensed workshop (CPP is the MBTI's publisher) or has a degree from an accredited college or university and has satisfactorily completed a course in interpretation of psychological assessments and in measurement at an accredited college or university. This means that anyone with a single course in tests & measurements may buy and use the MBTI. No professional license is necessary. Consulting to industry is big business and requires no license to practice psychology. The same is true of the field of "life coaching." 

 My recommendation: If your company informs you that a workshop will be held to improve productivity, teamwork, leadership, or some other corporate buzzword, using the MBTI, plan to be sick that day. 

References 

Burger, J. M. (2004). Personality (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 

Garb, H. N., & Boyle, P. A. (2003). Understanding why some clinicians use pseudoscientific methods. In S. O. Lilienfeld, S. J. Lynn, & J. M. Lohr (Eds.). Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology (pp. 17-38). New York: Guilford. 

Hunsley, J., Lee, C. M.,& Wood, J. M. (2003). Controversial and questionable assessment techniques. In S. O. Lilienfeld, S. J. Lynn, & J. M. Lohr (Eds.). Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology (pp.39-76). New York: Guilford. 

McCarley, N. G., and Clarskadon, T. G. (1983). Test retest reliabilities of the scales and subscales of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and of criteria for clinical interpretive hypotheses involving them. Research in Psychological Type, 6, 24-36. 

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D. & Bjork, R. (2009). Learning styles. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105-119.

Pittenger, D. J. (2005). Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57, 210-221. 

See also: Bjork, R. A. and Druckman, D. (1991). In the minds eye: Enhancing human performance. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

TCI is gold standard for assessing temperament and charater triats as persistance but in order to evaluating openness as a personality construct, l suggest NEO-PR short form. It doesn't need full scale of NEO for your project.

If you are asking for some raw data so that you can then the analysis of the relationships between items, then you are welcome to use the 3570 cases of answers to the 57 items of the EPi that is available in the psych package in R.

Install R, http://cran.r-project.org)

start R  

install.packages("psych")  #just do this once

library(psych)  #makes the package active every time you want to use it

?epi   #will give you a description of the 57 items as well as examples.

There are a number of different data sets embedded in the psych package, but this is probably the most useful for you.  

See http://personality-project.org/r   for a discussion of how to use R in personality research.  

There is a wide variety of different conceptualizations and operationalizations. In order to get an overview I'd suggest to have a look at the following paper:

Duckworth, A. L., & Kern, M. L. (2011). A meta-analysis of the convergent validity of self-control measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 259–268. 

If you are interested in trait self-control I would recommend to have a closer look at the Brief Self-Control Scale (13 items) by Tangney et al.:

Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 272-322.

Of course, in the end the selection of a suitable measure highly depends on your research objectives.

Hello Olga

These papers do not provide actual questionnaires, but might be of help to identify questionnaires relevant to you. Apart from the first, they are from the sports perspective.

 Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). The Posttraumatic Growth Inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9(3), 455-471.

One of the authors of the paper below is a member of ResearchGate (Richard Tedeschi) - it might be worthwhile looking at his page: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Tedeschi

 This next paper is quite old, now, but in developing a model, they review various questionnaires regarding sports injury:

Andersen, M. B., & Williams, J. M. (1988). A model of stress and athletic injury: Prediction and prevention. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10(3), 294-306.

The following looks at the above model and uses various questionnaires to test parts of the framework:

Hanson, S. J., McCullagh, P., & Tonymon, P. (1992). The relationship of personality characteristics, life stress, and coping resources to athletic injury. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14(3), 262-272.

 The paper below is probably not sufficiently based around injury for your request:

Ptacek, J. T. (1995). Development and validation of a multidimensional measure of sport-specific psychological skills: The Athletic Coping Skills Inventory-28. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 379, 398.

 Another two more recent papers may be of interest:

 Swirtun, L. R., & Renström, P. (2008). Factors affecting outcome after anterior cruciate ligament injury: a prospective study with a six‐year follow‐up. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 18(3), 318-324.

 Ekenman, I., Hassmén, P., Koivula, N., Rolf, C., & Felländer-Tsai, L. (2001). Stress fractures of the tibia: can personality traits help us detect the injury-prone athlete?. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 11(2), 87-95.

Hope this is of some help

Mary

As Alan suggested, there is indeed likely an algorithmic reason that Xcalibre might be calculating differently.  I know of one situation for sure.  A few weeks ago I received a support email with the same question, and the issue was that they were running a 5-point polytomous calibration on a sample of only 36. (!!!!)  Xcalibre automatically combines response levels with N=0.  In that case, there was, for example, an item where no one responded as 1 or 2, only 3-4-5.  The 1 and 2 levels were dropped and it was treated as a 3-option item, and since numbering starts at 0 or 1 (depending on if doing PCM or RSM approach), it gets renumbered.  So the researcher anticipated an item mean of 4 or so and it was reported as 2 or so.

I'd encourage you to contact the support team about the issue.

(Disclosure: I am the author of Xcalibre.)

Hi Danielle,

you could take a look at 

P. K. Jonason, Norman P. Li, David M. Buss: The costs and benefits of the Dark Triad: Implications for mate poaching and mate retention tactics. In: Personality and Individual Differences. 2010,48, 4, pp. 373-378

Jones, D. N., & Weiser, D. A. (2014). Differential infidelity patterns among the Dark Triad. Personality And Individual Differences, 5720-24. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.09.007

and maybe this one

Adams, H. M., Luevano, V. X., & Jonason, P. K. (2014). Risky business: Willingness to be caught in an extra-pair relationship, relationship experience, and the Dark Triad. Personality And Individual Differences, 66204-207. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.008

Regards

Frank

There isn't really an algorithm, nor is there one "Big Five" test. The "Big Five" is a set of five personality traits that many researchers agree make up the basic structure of human personality - at least, on the trait level. (It should be remembered that there are also 3, 4, 6, and 7-trait models, as well as some that look at personality on a more detailed level and include many more traits.)

Probably the best known five-factor inventory is the NEO-PI-R, a commercially published test authored by McCrae and Costa. It is sold by PAR (http://www4.parinc.com/). They also sell a short form, the NEO-FFI.

The International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) provides items/scales for many personality variables, including the Big Five, free of charge. So you could easily construct a test using their items. Personally, I feel that their items aren't always of very high quality - for example, the items on a scale are just too similar to one another - but the scales are basically okay and pretty widely used.

There is a group in the UK that put together a "Big Five" test using IPIP items and posted it on-line. That may be what you are looking for. The contact person for this project is Dr. Tom Buchanan (buchant@wmin.ac.uk).

Koppitz' 1968 book "Psychological Evaluation of Children's Human Figure Drawings" is still useful and includes research data. The much more recent "Draw a Person Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance, authored by Naglieri et al. and published by Pearson, contains useful data in its Manual. Beyond those major sources, there has been a trickle of published research. If you try PsycINFO you'll be able to identify the studies pretty easily. But there's a lot less on this subject than one might expect.

There is currently a Dutch version of the HEXACO available which is also useful for children (called the HEXACO-SPI) and I know Mike Ashton and Kibeom Lee are also working on a simplified HEXACO questionnaire suitable for children. Please contact me if you're interested at re.de.vries@vu.nl.

Cheers,

Reinout

Rosali! Your answer is illuminating and thought provoking. Species of Chrysosporium are present in the local soils in abundance as evidenced by isolating them by  hair-bait technique. We isolated Histoplasma capsulatum by mouse inoculation and floatation technique but not by usual methods used in isolating soil fungi. Our sample size was too small to conclude  the existence of H. capsulatum in soils of Gangetic plains. We studied and reported histoplasmosis cases attending Calcutta School of Tropical Medicine which are highest in Gangetic plains when compared to other parts of India. Future ecological and epidemiological studies may reveal the nature of the ICEBERG of the disease and the existence of the causal fungus in the local environment.

Journal of Universal Computer Science, vol. 9, no. 1 (2004), 27-37

The Effect of Personality-Aware Computer-Human

Interfaces on Learning

Edmond Abrahamian (edmond@tripos.com) et al.

Carl Jung’s Personality Type Theory is included in this paper.

You could of course use pre-post measures by means of scales such as The Empathy (E) scale which has been proposed as a theoretically and psychometrically more satisfying alternative to existing self-report measures of empathy.

Personal Growth Initiative (PGI) as an active, intentional engagement in the process of personal growth for self-improvement of life experiences.

Methods have been used such as ;: 25 final year students were required to reflect individually on the covenant that exists between society and t