Are Personality Tests Valid? Rorschach and MMPI Examined

Introduction: The Question of Personality Test Validity

Psychology is an ever-evolving science. While some still consider it a pseudoscience, many researchers have demonstrated the benefits of applied psychology and the effects mental health can have on an individual. However, because problems of the mind are not as easy to measure as they would be in biology, there tends to be a great deal of guesswork and misinterpretation. Businesses, schools, and governments use personality tests to understand a person and their motives. First developed in the 1920s, personality tests have grown in popularity, giving rise to debate over their validity. Are personality tests like the Rorschach Inkblot Test, the MMPI-2, and brief anxiety scales valid? No, they are not. This essay argues that these kinds of tests are not valid or reliable measures of personality and psychopathology, drawing on studies that reveal the accuracy rates of personality test results.

History and Development of Personality Tests

Personality tests first originated in the 1920s and are questionnaires or other standardized instruments designed to reveal facets of a person's psychological makeup or character. Intended to ease the process of employee selection — specifically in the armed forces — personality testing developed over subsequent decades to include a wide assortment of methods, from the MBTI to the MMPI and the ever-popular Rorschach Inkblot Test. A substantial amount of research and refinement has gone into personality test development. Tests take three stages before reaching their final form, and scales developed today frequently incorporate all three general methods. These methods are: inductive, deductive, and empirical (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2012, p. 18).

Deductive assessment construction begins by selecting a construct or domain to measure (Graham, 2003, p. 559). Experts thoroughly define the construct and generate items that are fully representative of all the attributes of that construct's definition. They then select or eliminate test items based on which will yield the strongest internal validity in order to properly develop the scale. The deductive methodology is favored over empirical and inductive methods because measures generated through deductive reasoning are said to be equally valid while taking much less time to build. This is an important point, however, because deductive reasoning is not as accurate as desired and can produce faulty or inaccurate results, which may then translate into an inaccurate construct and ultimately an inaccurate personality test.

Empirically derived personality evaluations also require the use of statistical techniques. A primary goal of empirical personality assessment is to construct a test that accurately discriminates between two major personality features — such as non-depressed and depressed individuals. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is one notable example developed using this approach. The problem with the empirical methodology is that the statistics are derived from qualitative reasoning and subjective validation, making results at best only somewhat accurate.

The Rorschach Inkblot Test: Uses and Criticisms

Projective tests are a kind of personality test with virtually similar uses, but instead of categorizing people into subgroups, they enable a clinician to identify or reveal feelings or thoughts that are, so to speak, "trapped" inside the human psyche. Among the most popular projective tests is the Rorschach Inkblot Test. This test is designed to allow an individual to respond to vague stimuli, which is then expected to reveal any hidden internal conflicts and emotions projected by the individual. Sometimes contrasted with a "self-report test" or an "objective test," the administrator analyzes responses according to a developed universal standard. Those analyzing the results often employ complex algorithms and psychological interpretation to make sense of the data.

Many psychologists use this kind of projective test to examine an individual's emotional functioning and personality characteristics. It is also employed to help identify underlying thought disorders; psychiatrists use it especially in cases where a patient is reluctant to openly describe their thinking processes. The 1960s marked the height of the Rorschach Inkblot Test's popularity, with wide use in outpatient mental health facilities. Used in conjunction with the MCMI-III and the MMPI-2, psychiatrists also employ this test in forensic assessment cases. As with many personality tests, critics have questioned its accuracy on several grounds: the general validity of the test, inter-rater reliability, and the objectivity of testers.

Conclusion

Psychology is evolving. While it has its uses in the medical world, it is also subject to criticism and rigorous assessment. Personality and projective tests can be a useful tool for encouraging participants to open up about their mental state. However, to claim that the results gathered from such tests are valid is not accurate. Too many variables must be accounted for in order to establish validity. An additional concern is the way these tests are constructed and whether administrators follow the prescribed instructions. Most of the time they do not follow the instructions carefully and make errors in their results, demonstrating the inconsistency and unreliability of such tests.

References

Gacono, C., & Evans, B. (2012). The handbook of forensic Rorschach assessment (p. 32). Routledge.

Graham, J. (2003). Handbook of psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Kaplan, R., & Saccuzzo, D. (2012). Psychological testing (8th ed., p. 18). Cengage Learning.

LeBreton, J., Scherer, K., & James, L. (2014). Corrections for criterion reliability in validity generalization: A false prophet in a land of suspended judgment. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 7(4), 478–500.

Mihura, J., Meyer, G., Dumitrascu, N., & Bombel, G. (2013). The validity of individual Rorschach variables: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the comprehensive system. Psychological Bulletin, 139(3), 548–605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029406

Paunonen, S., & LeBel, E. (2012). Socially desirable responding and its elusive effects on the validity of personality assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(1), 158–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028165