Reflective Techniques in Personality Testing

¶ … instrument available when it comes to personality testing. The second question is why that methodology is the best. Third and finally is the question of if and how personality tests can be skewed by the person taking the test. Regarding the first question, the author of this report reviewed the literature over the last three calendar years (with 2015 being the most recent of those three) and it would seem that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) would be a good indicator of personality when it comes to dysfunctional and abnormal psychologies. Recent work by Maples et al. noted that the third section of the DSM manual is related to a "pathological trait model." There are more than two hundred (two-hundred twenty to be precise) items in the DSM personality inventory. There are a bevy of both internal and external outcomes. A reduced version of the item inventory has about one hundred items but can be effective at diagnosing and divulging the personality of a person being assessed. The DSM model of diagnosing personality is very accurate when done properly. However, there is ample possibility of confusing between different outcomes and disorders not to mention the fact that comorbidity exists in a lot of patients and people otherwise being assessed using the DSM framework (Maples et al., 2015).

When speaking of general personality testing, some common methods are known as the countdown method, the item-response-theory method (IRT) and computerized testing methodology in general. These methods are mentioned by Rudick, Yam and Simms in a 2013 treatise on the subject. Computer-assisted testing (CAT) is actually less precise than more traditional methods but it takes a lot less time to get the same basic results. As such, many have come to the conclusion that such personality testing stands the proper tests of validity and reliability when tested across multiple contexts and situations. Of course, personality tests can absolutely be skewed by the person taking the test. A person can intentionally try to sway a test but multiple questions usually cover the same general topic so as to avoid such an outcome. General test types are almost always effective so long the facilitator is adept and the person taking the test is being honest with himself/herself and the evaluator. A huge upside to IRT-based training is that both person-related and item-related indicators are taken in at the same time. Even so, IRT and computerized training mechanisms can only do so much if there is any pathology and/or ineptness involved. However, it is clearly among the best resources out there when it comes to personality testing (Rudick, Yam & Simms, 2013).

Question Two

The author of this report is asked to answer one more set of questions relating to personality testing and that is whether projective techniques are valid when it comes to personality testing. Regardless of the answer, the "why" behind that answer is to be explained as well. The author of this report found an offering from April 2014 that related to forensic mental health assessment. It specifically mentioned projective techniques and how they were the least used when it came to forensic issues. As a frame of reference, the author of the study notes that projective techniques include the Rorschach ink blot test and the Thematic Apperception Test. As already noted, forensic people use them the least. The four areas in which they could be used are in response style/malingering, CSG, MSO and non-sexual violence risk. The cited reason is that there is a large risk of Type I errors when it comes to the use of techniques. As such, other methods that are more reliable and valid are used. Of course, this could just pertain to forensics as compared to other realms in which psychology could or should be used (McLaughlin & Kan, 2014).