Describe and evaluate contemporary use of personality measurement and testing, focusing on issues of reliability and validity, using empirical evidence to support your arguments.

Describe and evaluate contemporary use of personality measurement and testing, focusing on issues of reliability and validity, using empirical evidence to support your arguments.

Personality tests are widely used these days in both professional and informal settings. One may take a personality test online, for example; in order to determine how much like a film character they are, or they may take one in an employment process or clinical setting. This essay, however, will only be looking at formal tests. The tests have many uses, including recognizing psychological disorders or calculating future behaviour (Plotnik, 2002). It is important to note that personality tests are like any other instrument used to increase understanding of a topic and, like all instruments and methods, their use can cause both affirmative and undesirable results (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). We will look at both projective and self-inventory tests and compare their methods in terms of their validity and reliability. There are many different personality tests available today but we are only concerned with the Rorschach Ink Blot test (henceforth referred to as the Rorschach), the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - 2 (MMPI-2). Before the discussion of validity and reliability of the tests it is essential to comprehend just what personality is and to obtain an elementary outline of the three tests being discussed.

Personality is interpreted as a mixture of a person 's consistent behaviour, emotion and thought that illustrate the technique an individual exemplifies when responding to another individual or situation (Letzring, Wells & Funder, 2006). The specific reaction an individual presents is unique and affects their daily life in how they organise events, control emotions and make decisions. Eysenck (2004) outlines personality in a more thorough manner as he discusses it in terms of its stability, regularity throughout life,

References: -Anastasi, A. & Urbina, S. (1997). Nature and use of psychological tests. _Psychological testing_ (7th ed, pp. 2-31). -Butcher, J. N. & Rouse, S. V. (1996). Personality: _Individual differences and clinical assessment._ Annual Review Psychology, _47_, pp 87-111. -Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1988). _Handbook for the sixteen personality factor questionnaire (16 PF)_. Champaign, Illinois: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. -Cramer, P. (1999). _Future directions for the Thematic Apperception Test._ Journal of Personality Assessment, 72, pp 74-92. -Eysenck, M. (2004). Personality. _Psychology: An international perspective._ Have, UK: Psychological Press. (pp. 445-481). -Gough, H. G.(1956). _California Psychological Inventory_. Palo Alto, CA, England: Consulting Psychologists Press. 40 pp -Groth-Marnat, G -Kaplan, R. M. & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2005). Projective personality tests. In _Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and issues._ Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning. (6th ed., pp. 390-420). -Letzring, T., Wells, S., & Funder, D. (2006). Information quantity and quality affect the realistic accuracy of personality judgment. _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91,_ 111-123. -McCray, J., Bailly, M. & King, A. (2005). _The external validity of MMPI-2 research conducted using college samples disproportionately represented by psychology majors_. Personality and Individual Differences, Vol 38, Issue 5, pp 1097-1105 -Murstein, B -Passer, M. W., & Smith, R. E. (2008). _Psychology: The science of mind and behavior_ (4th ed.). New York, USA: McGraw-Hill. -Plotnik, R. (2002). _Introduction to Psychology_ (6th ed.). California, USA: Wadsworth-Thomson Learning. - Rose, T., Kaser-Boyd, N. & Maloney, M. P. (2001). _Essentials of Rorschach Assessment._ Canada: John Wiley & Sons Inc. -Wildman, R. W., & Wildman, R. W. II. (1975). _An investigation into the comparative validity of several diagnostic tests and test batteries_. Journal of clinical Psychology, 31, pp 455 - 458.