Running Head: 16 PERSONALITY FACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE

Analysis of 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire

Susan McGilloway

Walden University August 18, 2010

2 Abstract The following analysis consists of a discussion of the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) Fifth Edition within the context of Gordon Allports and Raymond Cattells theory of trait structure. Recognizing the complexity of assessing personality and the necessity of empirically supported assessment, Cattell developed a method of analyzing forced responses related to 16 basic factors of personality. Combining data, self-report, and observer report his method provides a comprehensive analysis of personality. The 16PF, now well respected as the paramount personality assessment, provides flexibility in diverse settings.

3 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire Prior to WWII, Freud psychoanalytic approach dominated personality theory that focused on negative instincts, drives, energy processes, defense mechanisms and motivations that lead to the dysfunction of the personality. Contemporaries of Freud, Jung and Adler, developed theories that deviated from Freuds approach, however, Freud remained the primary theoretician of the time. Some 70 years later, with the movement to assess soldiers for suitability as officers in WWII, Murray dominated personality exploration in the United States with a process that modeled German assessment measures based on identification of general characteristics and motivation.. Post WWII, with the focus on humanistic psychology, Maslow, Rogers, and Allport dominated research and .proliferated the field with literature that influenced subsequent theories of personality assessment (Hogan Assessment Systems, 2010). Theoretical and Conceptual History Significant to Raymond Cattell and the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) is the work of Gordon Allport. Following the publication of his dissertation and subsequent employment at Harvard, Allport taught the first Theory of Personality course in 1924 and 1925 entitled Personality: Its Psychological and Social Aspects. With his book Personality: A Psychology Interpretation, Allport positioned personality within the realm of psychology, and outlined his trait theory. In 1961 he published an updated version entitled Pattern and Growth in Personality (Carducci, 2009). In Allports quest to find a comprehensive yet explicable description of personality, he developed what is known as Trait Theory. According to Allport, traits are the fundamental elements of personality. They define the unique, generally stable characteristics of an individual (Carducci, 2009). The manner in which one views the world and is perceived is congruent with

4 the basic sense of self that characterizes that individual from others. While there are common traits that emerge as a result of universal experiences in anthropological evolution individuals respond to reality in a distinctive style congruent to their universal, group, and personal identity. Allport (1961), as cited in Carducci (2009), states, "Personality is the dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his characteristic behavior and thought (p. 260). According to Carducci (2009), the basic assumptions of Allports theory include Personality is a dynamic organization in a state of continuous growthis psychosocial in nature as it combines the mind and bodyis [sic] a determinant of behavior is [sic] an expression of each persons uniqueness (p. 260). Allport (1961) as cited in Carducci (2009) defines the basic element of personality as trait a neuropsychic structure having the capacity to render many stimuli functionally equivalent, and to initiate and guide an equivalent (meaningfully and consistent) form [sic] of adaptive and expressive behavior (Allport, 1961, p. 347) (p. 261). Allport posited models for studying traits as nomothetic (p. 261) (common to all people) and idiographic (p. 261) (unique to the individual). He further defines traits as cardinal (p. 263) (dominant) central (p. 263) (prevailing) and secondary (p.263) (flexible). Additionally, he expanded the concepts to a cultural construct (p. 264), as both culture and individual determined thus placing his theory within the context and understanding of cultural influences. Deviating from Freud, Allport further distinguished traits as having functional autonomy (Allport, 1961) as cited in (Carducci, 2009, p. 266) an independent response to current stimuli rather than being dependent upon childhood experience (Maddhi, 1996) as cited in Carducci (2009). According to Carducci (2009), he further delineated preservative functional autonomy (p. 266) (recurring) and propriate functional autonomy (p. 266) (leading to self

5 perception). Borrowing from Maslows hierarchy of needs, this approach placed the person on a continuum measuring personality within the context of maturity. Moreover, he incorporated values as intricate aspects of personality. Adapting Eduard Spranger (1928) as cited in Carducci (2009), he distinguishes values as theoretical, economic, aesthetic, social, political, and religious [sic] (Carducci, 2009, p. 267). This grouping of values formed the basis for the Study of Values Scale (Allport et al., 1960) as cited in Carducci (2009). Allport proposed using the scale for measurement of personality for marital and career counseling. Using Allports concept, Raymond Cattell, believing that personality guides behavior, and must be supported empirically, began to develop his theory of personality assessment. To assess personality, Cattell combined three data systems L-data (records), Q-data (self report questionnaires), and T-data (observation) to formulate evidence-based composites that would forecast behavior (Carducci, 2009). According to Carducci (2009), he expanded Allports trait structure to what he termed surface traits (p. 272) as clusters of observable behaviors and source traits (p. 272) as fundamental character. Cattell further distinguished traits as common (p. 273) and unique (p. 273), ability (p. 273), temperament, (Cattell, p. 233) and dynamic (Cattell, p. 233), and constitutional (p. 273) or biological, and environmental (p. 273). Ackerman (2009) adds for an historical footnote, 'dynamic' referred to motivational, conative, or volitional traits, and is generally traced to Woodworth's 'dynamic psychology' which was identified as functional psychology plus motivation (p. 249). Additionally, enlightened by Pearsons factor analysis, according to Carducci (2009), Cattell began empirical studies using this method to assess personality traits with a sequential approach. The procedure involved data collection (p. 274), establishment of a correlation

6 matrix (p. 274), and development of a factor matrix (p. 275). He designed a process in which he incorporated factor loadinga numerical index of the extent to which each specific behavioral is related to each factor (p. 275) similar to the relationship measured by a correlation coefficient. To predict behavior Cattell used a Behavioral Specification Equation (p. 276) followed by a Prediction of Behavior (p. 276) thus the origins of the factor analysis for the 16PF (R.B. Cattell, Cattell, & Cattell, 1993, R.B. Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970) as cited in Carducci (2009). Description The 16PF, first published in 1949 using the factor analysis, with subsequent editions in 1956, 1962, 1967-69 and the 5th Edition in 1993 with 38 new items (McClellan, 2004), is a 185 item multi-dimensional forced choice personality inventory (Carducci, 2009). The assessment is designed for individual or group administration as well as hand or computer scoring. The examinee is given three choices including a question mark. There are 15 reasoning ability items that have three different choices. Test time is 35-40 minutes with paper scoring and 25-35 minutes when administered on the computer. The test taker must complete at least 13 items, and is encouraged to answer all items with the initial response that comes to mind (McClellan, 2004). Scoring protocol consists of raw score counting, raw score conversion from the General Population Norms (McClellan, 2004, para 3), transfer of scores to the record form, conversion of raw to sten scores, transfer of factor scores to the record, charting of the sten scores, calculation of the five global factors, and interpretation. The technical manual provides detailed instructions for scoring and interpretation. Table 1 illustrates the 16 primary factors.

Table 1 Sixteen Primary Factors (Straker, 2003)

Factor A B C E F G H I L M N O Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Warmth Reasoning Emotional Stability Dominance Liveliness Rule-Consciousness Social Boldness Sensitivity Vigilance Abstractness Privateness Apprehension Openness to Change Self-Reliance Perfectionism Tension

High Range Warmhearted Abstract Stable Dominant Lively Rule-Conscious Socially Bold Sensitive Suspicious Imaginative Forthright Insecure Experimenting Self-Sufficient Compulsive Tense

Low Range Reserved Concrete Reactive Deferential Serious Expedient Shy Utilitarian Trusting Practical Unpretentious Self-Confident Not Likely to Change Group Dependent Careless of Social Rules Relaxed

Note. From 16PF Factors by D. Straker, 200 3, http://changingminds.org/explanations/preferences/16pf.htm . Copyright 2003 by Syque. Adapted with permission of the author.

8 In addition to the 16 Primary Personality Factors, the Five Global Factors are scored, converted, and transferred to the record as well. Table 2 illustrates the high and low range descriptors for the Five Global Factors. Within the Global Factors, high and low descriptors of Primary Factors appear. Dancer and Woods (2006) support the construct validity of the Five Global Factors in its alignment with the Big Five factor structure. These findings contradict previous research of Costa and McCrae (1992) as cited in Dancer and Woods (2006) suggesting that the Global Factors aligned with only four factors.

Table 2 Five Global Factors (Conn & Rieke, 1994) as cited in Cattell and Meade (2008).

High EX AX TM IN SC Extraverted High Anxiety Tough-Minded Independent Controlled

Global Factors Extraversion Anxiety Neuroticism Tough Mindedness Independence Self Control

Low Introverted Low Anxiety Receptive Accommodating Unrestrained

Note. From 16PF Factors by D. Straker, 2003, http://changingminds.org/explanations/preferences/16pf.htm . Copyright 2003 by Syque. Adapted with permission of the author.

Table 3 illustrates the Response Style of the test taker. Response Styles are indications of the manner in which the individual answered the questions. Impression Management expresses the degree that the test taker responses are socially desirable or undesirable. Infrequency indicates the number of middle or noncommittal responses on the part of the test taker. Acquiescence indicates the degree to which the test taker agreed to items no matter what the question asked.

Table 3 Three Response Style Indices (Cattell, 2003, p. 170)

Response Style IM INF Impression Management Infrequency

High Score Socially Desirable Frequent Middle Responses True Response Repeated

Low Score Socially Undesirable Infrequent Middle Responses Balance of True/False Responses

ACQ

Acquiescence

Note. From 16PF Factors by D. Straker, 2003, http://changingminds.org/explanations/preferences/16pf.htm . Copyright 2003 by Syque. Adapted with permission of the author.

Stark, Chernyshenko, Drasgow, and Williams (2006) suggest that the Likert (1932) as cited in Stark, Chernyshenko, Drasgow, and Williams (2006) Item Response Theory (IRT) bases the test takers response upon the mismatch between the item and the self perception of the test taker. They suggest instead that an ideal point model in which the test taker responds to an item according to how closely it matches self-perception may be more accurate thereby providing more psychometrically reliability and predictive validity. According to Carducci (2009), the 16PF continues to be a be a leader among published personality tests ( Murphy & Davidshofer, 2005, p. 408) (p. 276). Twenty-five hundred subjects randomly, selected from 4,449 individuals, comprised the normed sample. Demographics matched the 1990 U.S. Census figures. There are two discrepancies in age and education level (McClellan, 2004). Notably, in the 15- to 17-year age group, the percent in sample was 13.2% and the percent in census was 4.6% (McClellan, para 6). Additionally, there

10 were a disproportionate number of college level graduates as compared to high school graduates (McClellan, 2004). The Global Factors test-retest range at two weeks was .84-.91 indicating a strong reliability coefficient. The Primary Factors reliability coefficients ranged from .69-.87 slightly lower than the Global Factors. Internal consistency ranged from .64-.85 with a mean score of .74 using Cronbacks coefficient alpha and values (McClellan, 2004). Hough (1990) as cited in Cattell & Schuerger (2003) indicated that criterion validity remained stable taking into consideration test taker distortion in responses. Test Uses Rather than speculate regarding possible uses, the following circumstances indicate some areas in which the 16PF has been effective. Rahti, Prabhugaonkar, Jadhav, Shanker, and Dhavale (2008) utilized the 16PF to investigate the personality characteristics of post graduate medical students to determine whether traits influenced the students decision to pursue medical or surgical specialties. Results indicated that the majority of students fell within the average range of factor scoring. Additionally, no significant personality differences between students who chose medical and surgical specialties. Jung-Shaarawy (2009) utilized the 16PF to examine the personality traits of incarcerated female felons at the Arizona State Prison Complex - Perryville in Goodyear, Arizona to predict possible offenders as well as provide mental health services for those already within the prison system. The following results were significant. Female felons were found to be less warm and outgoing, less intelligent, less adaptive and mature, more assertive, more dutiful, more gregarious, less sensitive, more suspicious and skeptical, less creative and idea-oriented, less

11 private and discreet, less self-doubting and worried, more self-sufficient, less organized and selfdisciplined, and less tense and driven than the general population (p. 71). Lingiardi, Falanga, and DAugelli (2005), using the Italian translation of the 16PF, studied the relationship between personality factors and homophobia. Their findings indicated that there was a correlation between personality factors and homophobia and that military personnel and male college students had a greater degree of homophobia than female college students. Significant characteristics of military personnel were low self-esteem, insecure personality, super-ego harshness, conformity, and conservatism (p. 11). Similar characteristics were present in male college students. Some additional uses were in relation to career decision making, marriage stability, compatibility of couples, determining personality characteristics of police officers, clergy members, and suicide attempters (Carducci, 2009). The 16PF has proven useful in a variety of settings and is appropriate for diverse cultures (Carducci, 2009). The assessment has been translated into numerous languages making it an internationally accepted tool. One exception is its translation into African languages (van Eeeden & Mantsha, 2007). According to Pearson Assessments, the 16PF is applicable in the following settings: private practice, hospitals, forensics, corrections, neuropsychology, health psychology, public safety (Pearson Education Inc., 2010). Manuel, Borges, and Gerzina (2005), suggested a correlation between personality characteristics and competence in clinical skills of medical students. Students completed the 16PF and the Clinical Skills Assessment (CSA) III. Results indicated a correlation between high scores for warmth and low scores for privateness correlated with higher scores on the CSA III. These results were beneficial in providing training for future physicians.

12 Critique Significant strengths of the 16PF are readability of the manual, explicable scoring procedure, (McClellan, 2004), quantitative measurement, and scientific approach (Carducci, 2009). Rotto (2004) suggests its longevity as a personality assessment is a significant strength. The 16PF is perhaps the most well known instrument for measuring personality characteristics of the normal adult population. Psychometric strengths are strong reliability coefficient, standard error of measurement within the range for the test, well-defined rationale and normed sample. Significant weaknesses are the absence of validation reports in the technical manual, absence of published data, complexity of interpretation requiring advanced training (Rotto, 2004). McClellan (2004) suggests the use of the question mark as the middle response may encourage an infrequency response style. The complexity of the 16 factor personality structure may be intimidating to the novice user. Due to the complexity of the factor analytic approach, the 16PF has received some criticism of its replicability across dissimilar samples and diverse variables. Cattell (1946c) as cited in Revelle (2009) addresses the issue by suggesting the principle of parallel proportional profiles (p. 2) that permits the analysis of dissimilar samples and multiple variables. According to Revelle (2009), with the evolution of factorial analysis, the principle proposed in Cattell (1946c) as cited in Revelle (2009) is now possible. Psychometric weaknesses are overrepresentation of 15-17 year olds in the sample, underrepresentation of age 65 and over (McClellan, 2004). The 16PF utilizes a Random scale (RAND; Conn & Rieke, 1994) (p.227) as cited in Pietrzak and Korcuska (2007) that identifies responses not related to particular content. Pietrzak and Korcuska (2007) suggest that an additional item content response scale be used as well to assess the accuracy of responses. Additionally, Clark and Blackwell (2007) suggest that the reading level deviates from the 5th grade level stated in the technical

13 manual, that certain questions require sight ability so the 16PF would not be appropriate for the blind, and, linguistically, the assessment may present issues for clients for whom English is their second language. Ethical considerations preclude the use of the 16PF for formal diagnostic purposes as it is not designed to assess psychopathology (McClellan, 2004). All other ethical considerations as outlined in the American Counseling Association (ACA) Code of Ethics (2005) regarding the administration and use of assessments are applicable; namely, E.1.a. Assessment, E.1.b. Client Welfare, E.2 Competence to Use and Interpret Assessment Instruments, E.3 Informed Consent in Assessment, E.4 Release of Data to Qualified Professionals, E.6 Instrument Selection, Conditions of Assessment Administration, E.8 Multicultural Issues/Diversity in Assessment, E.9 Scoring and Interpretation of Assessments, and E.13 Forensic Evaluation: Evaluation for Legal Proceedings. The American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education (AERA, APA, NCME) (1999) applicable to employment testing are to be followed when the 16PF is used as a means of candidate selection. Applicable standards for candidate selection are 14.1 - 14.11. The test administrator is advised to consider all standards applicable to administrator competence, test selection and use, test environment, as well as diverse linguistic considerations. Civil rights legislation requires gendernormed scoring procedures. The 16PF meets this requirement (McClellan, 2004). Personal Applicability The 16PF is suitable for use within a college counseling center and particularly applicable for students with poor academic achievement and for general personality understanding. The 16PF provides insight into strengths, challenges, and motivation style that

14 may prove advantageous in counseling. The 16PF provides valuable information salient to occupational suitability. Although not designed for use in diagnosing clinical psychopathology, the use of the 16PF to explore personality characteristic of suicide attempters may prove valuable for the clinician in predicting individuals who are prone to suicide attempt (Carducci, 2009) . Additionally, its use to determine personality characteristics of individuals to predict offenders and multiple offenders for the development of rehabilitation services (Jung-Shaarawy, 2009). Evolutionary and social psychology places personality within the context of anthropology, environmental evolution, and personality characteristics that are responses to societal trends (Carducci, 2009). One example is the cultural evolution of females as nurturers and males as hunters and gatherers. Will the societal evolution of females as corporate leaders, combat personnel, single parent heads of households create a shift in gender personality characteristics? Will use of the 16PF to examine the prevalence of the openness to change factor within the population predict that the next generation of females will be less nurturing and more aggressive? Cultural personality traits effect such spheres as reproductive trends, mate selection, and gender dominance (Carducci, 2009). Will trait theory, and specifically such assessments as the 16PF, be useful in forecasting females and males with personalities most likely to evolve in a certain direction as a result of societal influences? Personality theory was relatively stagnant for some 70 years following the introduction of Freuds concept of the subconscious and its influence on behavior. The ensuing 70 years has provided significant scientific advances in the area of personality and the ability to measure its effect on behavior and, in some instances, predict behavior. Now ten years into the new millennium, scientific advances in genomics and neuroscience, and its relationship to

15 personality, provides an exciting outlook for the next 70 years for clinicians currently engaged in personality psychology and in subsequent generations.

16 References AERA, APA, & NCME. (2004). Standards for educational and psychological testing (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: AERA. American Counseling Association (2005). ACA Code of Ethics. Alexandria, VA: Author. Carducci, B. (2009). The psychology of personality: Viewpoints, research, and application. Hoboken, NJ, Wiley-Blackwell, Inc., pp. 259-284. Cattell, H., & Meade, A. (2008). The sixteen personality factor questionnaire. In The Sage Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment. (pp. 135 159). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cattell, H., & Schuerger, J. (2003). Essentials of 16 PF assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Cattell, R. (2009). Personality structure and measurement II: The determination and utility of trait modality. British Journal of Psychology, 100(Suppl), 233-248. doi:10.1348/000712608X344807. Clark, W., & Blackwell, T. (2007). Test Review. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 50(4), 247250. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. Dancer, L., & Woods, S. (2006). Higher-Order Factor Structures and Intercorrelations of the 16PF5 and FIRO-B. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 14(4), 385-391. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00360.x. Hawkins, T. Anne (2005). Personality factors and other predictors of academic success in medical students. Ph.D. dissertation, West Virginia University, United States -- West Virginia. Retrieved August 8, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3191225).

17 Hogan Assessment System. (2010). The history of personality. Retrieved August 14, 2010, from http://www.hoganassessments.com/history-of-personality Huntsinger, C., & Jose, P. (2006). A Longitudinal Investigation of Personality and Social Adjustment Among Chinese American and European American Adolescents. Child Development, 77(5), 1309-1324. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00936.x. Jung-Shaarawy, R.. Derivation of female felon norms for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Psy.D. dissertation, Alliant International University, Los Angeles, United States -- California. Retrieved August 8, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3368128). Lingiardi, V., Falanga, S., & D'Augelli, A. (2005). The Evaluation of Homophobia in an Italian Sample. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34(1), 81-93. doi:10.1007/s10508-005-1002-z. Manuel, R., Borges, N., Gerzina, H. (2005). Personality and clinical skills: any correlation? Academic Medicine Supplement, 80(10), S30-S33. McClellan, M. (2004). [Review of the test 16 PF5]. In The twelfth mental measurements yearbook. Available from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/ehost/detail?vid=5&hid=111&sid=dd5 27ea9-fc1f-4350-bf695105288b92d6%40sessionmgr110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1za XRl#db=loh&AN=12121671 Pietrzak, D., & Korcuska, J. (2007). The discrimination of fully randomized and partially randomized responding from nonrandomized responding on the sixteen personality factor questionnaire-fifth edition. Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development

18 (American Counseling Association), 39(4), 226-238. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. Revelle, W. (2009). Personality structure and measurement: The contributions of Raymond Cattell. British Journal of Psychology, 100(Suppl), 253-257. doi:10.1348/000712609X413809. Rotto, P. (2004). [Review of the test 16 PF5]. In The twelfth mental measurements yearbook. Available from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/ehost/detail?vid=5&hid=111&sid=dd5 27ea9-fc1f-4350-bf695105288b92d6%40sessionmgr110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1za XRl#db=loh&AN=12121671 Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O., Drasgow, F., & Williams, B. (2006). Examining assumptions about item responding in personality assessment: Should ideal point methods be considered for scale development and scoring?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 25-39. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.25. van Eeden, R., & Mantsha, T. (2007). Theoretical and methodological considerations in the translation of the 16PF5 into an African language. South African Journal of Psychology, 37(1), 62-81. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.