Evaluation of the NEO Personality Inventory – 4 for practical use

Final Analysis of a Selected Test: NEO Personality Inventory – 4 (NEO-4)

Abstract
In basic terms, the NEO Personality Inventory – 4 (NEO-4) is a tweaked Revised NEO-PI-R version. It comes in handy when the primary area of interest happens to be within the four domains, i.e. extraversion (E), openness to experience (O), agreeableness (A), as well as Conscientiousness (C). Towards this end, the relevance of NEO-4 cannot be overstated within the realms of personal growth, vocational training, and career development. It is important to note that NEO-4 happens to be largely similar to NEO-PI-R especially when it comes to not only all the items in the questionnaire, but also the scale norms as well as scoring keys. The two mainly differ with regard to the Neuroticism (N) domain which is not included in NEO-4. Users can find the relevant information on the domains identified above in the NEO-4 Manual Supplement. An evaluation of the selected test would be of great relevance in seeking to not only identify improvement areas for the test, but also determine the appropriateness for use in the field and with populations to be served.

Final Analysis of NEO Personality Inventory – 4 (NEO-4)
In essence, this text concerns itself with the strengths and weaknesses of NEO-4, with special reference to each of the nine elements that govern the test user’s selection of tests that satisfy the purpose intended and are deemed appropriate for use in the field as well as with populations to be served. However, it is important to note that special focus will be given to the extent to which Element 9 applies to NEO-4.
In the final analysis, recommendations will be incorporated about the various ways in which NEO-4 could be further improved. Essentially, the said recommendation for improvement will be founded on my evaluation and assessment for each of the nine elements. On the basis of the strengths and weaknesses of NEO-4, as well as identified opportunities for improvement, a determination will be made as to whether the test is appropriate for use in the field and with populations to be served.
NEO Personality Inventory – 4 (NEO-4): An Evaluation
As per the Code of Fair Testing Practices in Education, and with special reference to the selection of appropriate tests, test users “should select tests that meet the intended purpose and that are appropriate for the intended test takers” (Joint Committee on Testing Practices – JCTP, 2004). Towards this end, there are a total of nine elements that ought to be taken into consideration on this front. Ideally, these are the elements that should be used as the basis for the identification of the strengths and weakness of NEO-4 so as to make a determination as to whether or not the said test could be used in the field and with populations to be served.
To begin with, the first element relates to the definition of the need for testing, the identified areas of interest (i.e. skills), as well as the relevant takers of the test. Towards this end, the test user ought to “select and use the most appropriate test based on a thorough review of available information” (JCTP, 2012). In this case NEO-4 comes in handy as a meaningful test in several definite settings where the domains of extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness are the primary focus. The settings for which the test is designed include employee training, career development, and career counseling (Costa and McCrae, 2019). The said contexts are predominantly personal and employment counseling settings. The population to be served is inclusive of the employees of XYZ Company. The focus is largely on balancing work-related activities with home responsibilities. In that regard, therefore, the overall focus is personal growth – effectively meaning that NEO-4 would be appropriate for the target population.
Next, we have the second element which relates to a review as well as selection of tests on the basis of “the appropriateness of test content, skills tested, and content coverage for the intended purpose of testing” (Costa and McCrae, 2019). As it has been pointed out in the introductory section of this text, the primary area of interest in NEO-4 happens to be within four domains, i.e. extraversion (E), openness to experience (O), agreeableness (A), as well as Conscientiousness (C). It is important to note that as per the NEO-4 Manual Supplement, a novel approach towards the interpretation of the domains highlighted above was introduced in the test. The said approach essentially focuses on a total of six personal systems or modes namely: character, learning, attitudes, activity, interactions, and interests. The fact that this test gives insight into the six personal styles that are largely definitive of the four domains means that it would be appropriate in the assessment of workplace/familial concerns that intersect to promote personal growth.
The third element has got to do with not only the review of materials that test developers provide, but also the selection of tests whereby the information presented is complete, accurate, as well as clear (JCTP, 2012). The NEO-4 Manual Supplement presents the relevant data on a wide range of factors that relate to the four personality domains. This is more so the case in relation to the validity, factor structure, reliability, as well as rationale of the said factors. A test user is, therefore, likely to come to the conclusion that the information presented therein is largely complete and accurate. Thus in relation to the third domain, I find that the NEO-4 would be appropriate for the field and population to be served. On this front, it is important to note that it would be relatively easy to interpret the domains within the half a dozen personality styles. As it has been pointed out elsewhere in this text, the said personality styles are inclusive of character, learning, attitudes, activity, interactions, and interests. It should also be noted that as Costa and McCrae (2019) point out, “the NEO-4 materials include a reusable item booklet for self-reports (Form S) or for ratings by another individual (Form R), a hand-scorable carbonless answer sheet, a profile form for plotting raw scores to yield T scores…” There is also some handout that details the various graphs relating to personal style.
As per the fourth element, the test user ought to “select tests through a process that includes persons with appropriate knowledge, skills, and training” (JCTP, 2012). According to Stepp, Yu, Miller, Hallquist, Trull, and Pilkonis (2012), NEO inventories are classified by the publisher in Level B or Level S. This effectively means that users of the same ought to have some background or strong foundation in psychology – preferably degree holders in the same. It should also be noted that individuals with college degrees in any medical field could use the NEO inventories, including NEO Personality Inventory – 4 (NEO-4). However, in the latter case special training in the utilization as well as interpretation of tests of this nature would come in handy. All these factors will be taken into consideration. At present, those selected for the undertaking have college degrees in psychology. However, in line with the spirit of the third element, deliberate steps will be taken to ensure that capabilities are further promoted with reference to the practical utilization as well as interpretation of the results returned in this case. This could be done by, amongst other things, ensuring that test users are familiar with the various components and provisions of the NEO-4 Manual Supplement. The relevance of engaging the cooperation of the respondent cannot also be overstated in this case. One way to do this would be via the provision of both ample time and an agreeable setting to the respondent. Further, it would be fair to restate that confidentiality is guaranteed. Other more obvious factors which I would expect to highlight include, but they are not limited to, the purpose of the test and the procedure to be followed. This undertaking is cognizant of the fact that the issues highlighted above can only be addressed when the process incorporates persons having the appropriate training, skills, as well as knowledge – as per the dictates of element 4.
The fifth element relates to the evaluation of “the technical quality of the test provided by the test developer and any independent reviewers” (JCTP, 2012). This is of great relevance in the determination of not only the reliability, but also the validity of a specific psychological test. With reference to NEO-4, the developer clearly states the purpose, format, age range, as well as time and qualification level of the test. With regard to the purpose, the developer is categorical that NEO-4 “provides a quick four-factor measure of personality” (Costa and McCrae, 2019). On the other hand, when it comes to the age range, test takers could be of age 18 to 96 years. Next, pencil and paper happens to be the format, and 25 to 35 minutes the administration time. The qualification level is notes as S. As it has been pointed out elsewhere in this text, Level B and Level S are classifications of NEO inventories which in the words of ….., “are available to individuals with a college degree in psychology or a related discipline or in one of the health care professions, provided that they have the appropriate training…” (Cook, 2012). Thus, on this front, we could say that NEO-4 satisfied element 5 as far as its technical quality is concerned.
When it comes to the sixth element, JCTP (2004) points out that there is need for the evaluation of “representative samples of test questions or practice tests, directions, answer sheets, manuals, and score reports before selecting a test.” With reference to NEO-4, it is important to note that the items in the questionnaire number 192. The multifaceted nature of the test makes it possible to highlight an individual’s diverse positive characteristics alongside those characteristics that are in one way or another less desirable. In this case, the description of the two sets of characteristics is in a format that an individual readily embraces. Further, in instances where there is need to view the responses of an individual with caution, the answer sheet has a total of three brief validity checks. This is particularly important in our case. This is more so the case given that in the present case, the focus is largely on balancing work-related activities with home responsibilities amongst employees of XYZ Company. Responses, therefore, ought to be not only factual, but also valid. In that regard, therefore, NEO-4 appears to be a sound alternative in this particular endeavor.
Next, the seventh element relates to the evaluation of “procedures and materials used by test developers, as well as the resulting test, to ensure that potentially offensive content or language is avoided” (JCTP, 2004). It should be noted that in relation to NEO-4, the developer has taken deliberate measures to avoid any content that could be deemed offensive by test takers. This I know from my assessment of all the test questions as well as related materials. In essence, this is a laudable move as it would promote participation on this front – more so given that the overall agenda in this case is to assess an issue that is of great relevance to the success of the XYZ enterprise going forward, i.e. assessment of workplace/familial concerns that intersect to promote personal growth. The provision of the relevant details regarding the rationale as well as validity assurances comes in handy as an aid to the test user especially when it comes to the further evaluation of the content of related materials.
When it comes to the eighth element, the issue of relevance is “the selection of tests with appropriately modified forms or administration procedures for test takers with disabilities who need special accommodations” (JCTP, 2004). It is important to note that despite the other elements defined/described above having largely been supportive of my selected test, i.e. NEO-4, the test largely fails on this front. This is to say that the test developer does not in this case come up with modified versions of the test or formulate innovative procedures at the administrative level to accommodate test takers who could be having special needs. At XYZ, we have two employees who have developmental disabilities that effectively get in the way of effective comprehension. They are essentially slow learners. Such individuals ought to have been considered in the development of a test of this nature.
Lastly, we have element 9. The said element relates to the “evaluation of the available evidence on the performance of the test takers of diverse subgroups” (JCTP, 2004). On this front, it would be prudent to assess the test’s reliability as this would enable us to evaluate just how test takers of diverse subgroups perform. In so doing, the appropriate sample size should be obtained and assurances made that if indeed there are any performance differences, they are as a consequence of the skills under assessment. In this case, it should be noted that as Groth-Marnat and Wright (2016) point out, in an assessment of NEO scales on 1500 persons for internal consistency, NEO 4’s performance was deemed impressive, i.e. high. This was largely in consistence with the internal consistency of NEO PI-R. Essentially, for the four domains under consideration, alpha was found to fall within the range of .90 to .94.
It should, however, be noted that in yet another study, the reliability of experience and openness domains was put to question. In the words of Trull and Prinstein (2012), NEO-4 “was reliably tested through a study of 630 students of Iranian culture” with the study on reliability “revealing that only the openness to experience domain did not have sufficient reliability; the Cronbach’s alpha equaled 0.39” (164). It is, however, important to note that as the authors further point out, individual behavior differences could have been as a consequence of cultural tradition. Towards this end, we could come to the conclusion that in this particular case, performance differences could have been related to the assessed skills. Thus, NEO-4 would still be deemed relevant in relation to the field and population to be served in the present scenario.
Summary
In the final analysis, and on the basis of the discussion above, I would recommend the test, i.e. the NEO Personality Inventory – 4 (NEO-4), in both the field and with the population to be served, i.e. the employees of XYZ Company. As it has already been pointed out elsewhere in this text, the focus is largely on balancing work-related activities with home responsibilities. Towards this end, therefore, the overall focus is personal growth – essentially meaning that NEO-4 would be appropriate for the target population.
In my recommendation of the test, I am guided by a number of factors. To begin with, the test appears to be the most appropriate given an assessment of the available data on the same, and taking into consideration the specific needs as well as circumstances of the population to be served. I arrived at this conclusion following my review of available information and upon my assessment of the various domains and how meaningful they would be in this scenario.