Traits, types & psychometrics Flashcards
psychometrics=
the field of study concerned with the theory & technique of psychological measurement (how we measure, what are assumptions underlying etc)
Classic Test Theory: Basic idea?
basic psychometric theory that attempts to map constructs to data
Classic Test Theory: Fundamental idea> (6)
- construct under study has “true” score: ‘T’
- attempt to measure construct with X
- Try to get X as close to T as possible
- X+T= Error
- Error is due to fact, process of measuring has some impact on construct itself
- Known as “observational error”
CTT: Types of error> (5)
- Misunderstandings (e.g. when self-reporting)
- Idiosyncratic interpretations (e.g. neurodiverse)
- Distractions (e.g. when online survey)
- Time pressure (e.g. time of day, being in rush etc)
- Time of day, year etc
>error presumed to be randomly distributed; error averages out to 0 across measures
Personality data can be evaluated through 2 key concepts>
> reliability
validity
Evaluating personality data: (1) Reliability=
how consistent/dependable a particular measure is
Evaluating personality data: (1) Reliability> ways to consider/explore> (3)
> Test-retest reliability
Internal consistency
Inter-observer reliability
Evaluating personality data: (1) Reliability> (1) Test re-test reliability>
> Does the same measure give the same result each time?
Evaluating personality data: (1) Reliability> (1) Test re-test reliability> Limitations>
- not practical to access identical sample every time
- fatigue effect: different outcomes due to tiredness of participants
- familiarity: knowledge of survey may compromise data collection
Fatigue effect=
different outcomes due to tiredness of participants
Evaluating personality data: (1) Reliability> (2) Internal consistency>
Are different measures looking at the same underlying thing? (e.g. 5 items looking at different aspects of extraversion)
Evaluating personality data: (1) Reliability> (2) Internal consistency> tests/ methods>
> Split-half test: Ans to similar qns should correlate if split in half (however correlations are influenced by HOW items are split)
Cronbach’s alpha= statistical method for exploring these internal consistencies with a subscale
Evaluating personality data: (1) Reliability> (3) Inter-observer reliability>
> is there agreement in measurement between different researches observing same area of research?
to avoid bias, researchers observe the same behaviour INDEPENDENTLY & compare their data
Evaluating personality data: (1) Reliability> (3) inter-observer reliability> methods
1) Training observers in same observation techniques
2) Behavioural categories operationalised (objectively define what asking for from start)
Evaluating personality data: (2) Validity=
way of considering if the measure if measuring what you THINK it is measuring
Evaluating personality data: (2) Validity> Types of validity measures>
> criterion validity
construct validity
content validity
discriminant validity
ecological validity
face validity
Evaluating personality data: (2) Validity> (1) Criterion validity=
to what degree can the scale predictively measure constructs
Evaluating personality data: (2) Validity> (1) criterion validity> 3 types>
> convergent validity= compare results with established method (e.g. new questionnaire & established scale)
> predictive validity= does measure predict a relevant behaviour or task performance
> retrospective validity= how the measure correlates with past occurrence of such behaviour (e.g. measuring risky behaviour & access to hospital records)
Evaluating personality data: (2) Validity> (2) Construct validity=
is scale measuring what it claims to measure (e.g. is ‘arrogance’ measure exclusively measuring arrogance or narcissism aswell)
Evaluating personality data: (2) Validity> (2) Construct validity> Threats:
- mismatch between operational definition & construct
- researcher bias
- procedural errors
Evaluating personality data: (2) Validity> (3) content validity=
how much of construct is captured by the item (e.g. is it measuring ONE aspect of empathy (i.e. towards animals) or attempting to capture a GENERAL disposition)
Evaluating personality data: (2) Validity> (3) content validity> methods>
- exploratory factor analysis= statistical method for REDUCING a large set of measures to the CORE underlying dimensions of a construct
Evaluating personality data: (2) Validity> (4) Discriminant validity=
discriminating between measures (e.g. poor DV is a scale measuring self-confidence but it also captures aspects of narcissism)
Evaluating personality data: (2) Validity> (5) Ecological validity=
are the questionnaires (which are conducted in a lab setting), applicable in REAL-WORLD contexts
Evaluating personality data: (2) Validity> (5) Ecological validity> criticism to take into account>
- common criticism of psych studies over-using undergrad pscyh student sampling> limited sample
- over-focus on WEIRD societies
Evaluating personality data: (2) Validity> (6) Face validity=
does it INTUITIVELY seem to measure the construct (i.e the item appears to be a reasonable measure of the construct to a lay person)
Evaluating personality data: (2) Validity> (5) Face validity> limitations>
- researcher bias
- requires empirical validity to legitimise (i.e. demonstration of accuracy via experimentation and/or observation)
Threats to validity>
> Time= events may occur which alter behaviour of participant
Historical events= events can change responses to phenomena explored (e.g. OCD tendencies during pandemic= higher)
maturation= longitudinal study on ‘young people’, susceptible to other factors, as young people change e.g. reading ability in children= not always steady increase)
group threats= different tactics of recruitment to studies between experimental & control group can impact investment/commitment to study (e.g. volunteers vs non-volunteers)
Exploring personality theories»
> Initial premise: (e.g. extraverts should have bigger social networks)
Therefore: (extraverts should have more social support in times of need)
Therefore: (extraverts should show better recovery outcomes after traumatic injury/illness)
What is the great trait debate?
Debate as to whether personality is best understood as ‘Types’ or ‘Dimensional traits?’
The Great Trait Debate> Types= (3)
-a binary
- consistent over life time
- person-centred
The Great Trait Debate> Types> Different areas of enquiry> (4)
- Phrenology: (bumps on head- to denote P type)
- Jung’s psychological functions= idea of 2 types of person: (1) rational; (2) irrational (thinking/feeling; sensing/intuition)
- Type A/B personality theory
- Myers-Briggs personality types
The Great Trait Debate> Types> Myers-Briggs Type indicator (MBTI)> 8 domains>
- Extraversion (E)
- Introversion (I)
- Sensing (S)
- Intuition (N)
- Thinking (T)
- Feeling (F)
- Judging (J)
- Perceiving (P)
The Great Trait Debate> Types> Myers-Briggs Type indicator (MBTI)> 8 domains> 4 continuums categorised into>
1) Introversion vs Extraversion (I-E)
2) Sensing vs intuition (S-N)
3) Thinking vs Feeling (T-F)
4) Judging vs Perceiving (J-P)
The Great Trait Debate> Types> Myers-Briggs Type indicator (MBTI)> what is it?
- 8 domains (I,E,S,N,T,F, J,P) categorised > 4 continnums (IE, SN, TF, JP)>
- many qns asked to determine place on continuums
- outcome of 16 personality types: determines by which type closest to in each domain (e.g. 52% E=E)
- each type has description of ‘your’ qualities
Types> Myers-Briggs Type indicator (MBTI)> indicator instrument> (2)
1) in-person with a certified practitioner
2) online instrument
Types> Myers-Briggs Type indicator (MBTI) Cons>
> ‘industry’ of MBTI: (commercialised)
-includes selling the instrument
-training program to get certification for practitioners
-focus on corporations (ans to corporate problems: i.e. motivation)
Types> Myers-Briggs Type indicator (MBTI)> pros: supporting research
> MBTI & learning: (murphy, 2020):
-relationship between types & preferred teaching methods (e.g. extraverts & student-teacher interaction; Introverts & independent work)
Meta-analysis: (Randall, 2017)
-validity & reliability assessment= good reliability for E-I, S-N, & J-P subscales (but poor ecological validity for J-P: ‘real world’)
Types> Myers-Briggs Type indicator (MBTI)> Critical research>
> Internal consistency= participant can self-verify the results
“Forer effect”= vague & positive descriptions mean MBTI is highly susceptible to over-interpretation
“True self claim”= how does a measure of CONSCIOUS preferences reveal HIDDEN true self?
Types> A & B personality types> Type A
> Pattern behaviour:
-competitive
-high achievers
-time urgent
-hostile
Outcomes:
-70% if men with heart disease were type A (same differences evident among women)
-hostility may be main contributing factor
Types> A & B personality types> Type B>
Pattern behaviour:
-patient
-people pleasers
-creative
-relaxed
Outcomes:
-less likely to engage in ‘presentism’ beavhiour at work
Types> A & B personality types> Beyond binary>
> Type C= submissive, emotionally retentive
Type D= negative, low self-esteem
Type T= thrill seeking, risk takers
not much evidence/research however
Dimensional traits»
continuous distributions:
>not completely DISTINCTIVE types, but VARIATIONS around universal psychological constructs
>not qualitatively different, but relatively high or low scores on a CONTINUOUS distribution
Dimensional traits> OCEAN personality traits>
- Openness
- Conscientiousness
- Extraversion
- Agreeableness
- Neuroticism
Dimensional traits: critical research»
- limiting paradigm= traits are based on WEIRD-based cultural presumptions & lack reliability in other cultural contexts
- a traits for potential for change= ‘openness’ trait changes in work-based contexts over time
- social desirability bias= model susceptible to a participants desire to present their best self
Dimensional traits: OCEAN personality traits> supporting evidence>
> Financial behaviour= OCEAN traits found to predict financial based behaviours (e.g. extraversion & risk-taking)
Pro-environmental attitudes= (e.g. openness> reliable predictor of conservation attitudes)
Covid-based risk perception= (e.g. conscientiousness predicted perceived travel risk during pandemic)
Autonomic nervous system= sig relationship between ANS & conscientiousness)
Types vs dimensional traits: amount vs catgeory>
> DT: focused on AMOUNT ; PTT: sorting into categories
Types vs dimensional traits> Behaviour
DT: Behaviour is CAUSED BY traits; a REDUCTIVE approach
PT: Behaviour is an EXPRESSION of type; a PURPOSIVE approach
Types vs dimensional traits> Distribution:
DT: normally distributed
PT: Bimodal/ skewed distributions
Types vs dimensional traits: Measuring>
DT: involves measuring amounts
PTT: qualitatively distinct, idea of ‘inborn’ preferences
Types vs dimensional traits: too much/little>
DT: Too much or too little is often NEGATIVE or DIAGNOSTIC
PTT: Too much or too little is irrelevant
Types vs dimensional traits> key areas of difference>
- Amount/category
- Behaviour
- Distribution
- Measuring
- Too much/ little
The great trait debate: ADV of traits>
- Better at predicting outcomes than PT
- context dependent sensitivity compared with PT
- Makes less assumptions about innateness
>defining a person by PT may be useful in certain context but not scientifically/psychologically accurate
