Talk:Personality test

Examples of personality tests

Missing aspect. Electrodermal Activity for physiological measures commonly used in personality research. Larsen et al in Personality Psychology - Domains of Knowledge about Human Nature, p. 165. McGraw-Hill (2013), 5th ed. (European version) I think. Care to add? 193.69.139.160 (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

This article is good about keeping a neutral tone about the topic through its length. The article, does however, have a poor citation to text proportion. There are large paragraphs that are completely devoid of any references at all like in the "Respondent Faking" and "Test Development" sections. Many of the citations are also rather out of date. Adding more sources and replacing older ones with more up to date information would be an easy place to begin improving the article. (for personality theory class wiki project) MLYCCX (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason that the Forté Profile, Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory, Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, Swedish Universities Scales of Personality, Edwin E. Wagner's The Hand Test, and Enneagram of Personality were brushed over as "Other personality tests" in the "Examples" section of this article? If there is no reason, I will work on giving them short descriptions similar to the other examples listed in that section of the article. (for personality theory class wiki project) MLYCCX (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Is the Lüscher color test worth mentioning here?--BillFlis 13:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The entry on BTSA reads like promotional material rather than an encyclopedic description; it is also noticeably longer than the other entries in the section. Would it be better to shorten this and make it sound more objective, and include a link to a page describing BTSA? TeamCoachingNetwork 09:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Too much uncited detail. The entry needs to be shortened radically, and a seprate, properly sourced article created. Quakerman 16:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have edited Katherine's entry to make it more objective. I do hope she will write the page for her instrument. TeamCoachingNetwork 22:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Collection of Tests

There's a fair number of tests at the same site that hosts the Robin Hood Morality Test. Is a site such as this worth mentioning? 204.13.204.194 (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an especially instructive test, related to major personality theory, and research-based. It is free and online at: http://mynichecomputing.org/risChecklist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.78.134 (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the semi-referenced section below. It's an add, and not appropriate in the section, I reckon. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This is still relevant to today's job market, where use of [[Unicru]] personality tests has become unpopular enough to create a demand for software applications to automate the process of filling them out.<ref name=pbot>{{citeweb | title = pBot 1.1 is here! They want to hire a robot? Give 'em a robot!| url = http://www.glassboxfactory.com/pbot/}}</ref>

International Personality Item Pool

Mrm7171, you were right to delete commercial web sites. It was good that you deleted the Ultimate Guide web site and another commercial site. I also deleted commercial sites. The International Personality Item Pool is a different story. It is noncommercial, and available to researchers for free. It is the result of an international collaboration among researchers. It should be retained. It is a very good site. Iss246 (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Being "commercial" or not has nothing to do with it. What matters is whether or not is has encyclopedic value beyond what should be in this article. --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I realize that Ronz. I was responding to the apparent reason for its deletion, which according to the comments, was that the site is commercial. It isn't.

With regard the separate but important issue you raise, I report that the IPIP is an important site. It covers a broad range of measures of personality traits. The site makes the measures, which were provided by personality researchers, available to other researchers, graduate students, undergraduates, etc. Iss246 (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Iss246. It has considerable encyclopedic value, especially to both research and applied psychologists. It is not spam. It is not commercial. No one is trying to sell anything on the website. It is public domain. It's free and useful. And there is absolutely no harm in keeping the link. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with Ronz on this one and I really do think you are missing the point iss246. I deleted this external link as it has no encyclopedic value. It also has promotional links to commercial websites on the site, see: http://www.ori.org/ It is also providing promotion for a small set of selected personality tests, free or not free. It also promotes consulting services! It is not representative of all personality tests, it is not balanced. For all these reasons, and many more, I think it needs to be deleted with the other 3 websites I also deleted.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The website does not link to commercial websites; please explain how it does. And a website does not have to be perfectly representative of "all personality tests" or perfectly "balanced" to be linked in the external links section. And please give us the evidence that the website promotes consulting services, i.e., where does it solicit consultation services? And finally, the fact that the link has been in the article for at least two years gives it de facto consensus, which requires a new consensus to remove it. And there is no current consensus to remove it. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

http://ipip.ori.org/newConsultingHelp.htm. this link to consulting services? This link to a commercial website, http://www.ori.org/ Just because this external link was not removed does not warrant its inclusion. It provides no encyclopedic value and I have just shown 2 links for commercial purposes. Wikipedia is not here for promotion purposes, or free research! Can you answer to both Ronz's and my specific points here.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, it was a mistake to delete the site (May 24, 2014P) when you wrote, "External links: deleted more commercial websites, with consulting and other commercial interests attached." Iss246 (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The site was supported by the NIMH from 1992 to 2006. It became a non-profit collaborative after the NIMH stopped supporting it.

The IPIP site "is intended to provide rapid access to measures of individual differences, all in the public domain, to be developed conjointly among scientists worldwide. Later, the site may include raw data available for reanalysis; in addition, it should serve as a forum for the dissemination of psychometric ideas and research findings." It exists to help researchers. Paul Spector in his website mentions IPIP as a source researchers can use when searching for items.

ORI (http://www.ori.org/about_ori), which is cited in the IPIP web site, is a legitimate, noncommercial research institute located in Eugene. For example, you would not exclude the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory because it is also a non-profit.

The one person at the IPIP web site offering "limited" consulting is a consulting editor at JPSP and other personality journals. His consulting amounts to answering emails about the IPIP. He is much more interested in putting personality items into the public domain (Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. G. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84-96. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007) Iss246 (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

www.ori.org is not a commercial website. One link to one person's availability for consulting does not mean the website as a whole promotes consulting. Almost any website (including many of those linked on Wikipedia), if you click around enough, will have something that conceivably could be considered promotional. That does not make the website commercial; and if it does, most links on Wikipedia need to be removed. And yes, material that has been in article for two years has de facto consensus; that's common on Wikipedia when there is no dispute about material in an article and no policy violations.. A new consensus is required to make a change if editors disagree with each other. And the concerns about encyclopedic value has already been addressed by Iss 246 and me. Now, please wait for a consensus before removing the link again. Thank you. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 01:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links especially section titled: Advertising and conflicts of interest 100 other websites and hundreds of other personality tests could and should be added for balance, if this external link to websites remains in this article. This link needs to be deleted. It is against Wikipedia policy. It is of no encyclopedic value either? Perhaps we need some dispute resolution here? And some more 'eyes' on this commercial external link advertising a small range of personality tests over 100s of others? Seems very promotional to me? Advertising and driving traffic to external websites?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want more eyes on this issue, I encourage you to follow the procedures at WP:DR or seek opinions at WP:ELN. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

listed at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard No need to edit war. We just need clarification on policy it seems. Again, could you please answer to the points made by Ronz and myself. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Your points have been addressed, just not in a way that you want to accept as valid. The fact that we disagree does not mean that we have not addressed the issues. Let's see if we get more opinions. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I have agreed with Ronz on this one. The external link adds no encyclopedic value? Also, 100 other websites and hundreds of other personality tests in their research stage, could, and should be added for balance, if this external link to websites remains in this article? Wikipedia is not here for advertising lecturers consultancy services, or driving traffic to commercial websites. Mrm7171 (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure that I can name 100 web sites that contain legitimate personality tests. Many personality variables are covered in the IPIP site. It is not devoted to a single construct.

Moreover, the items and scales from the IPIP have have been widely used. I don't know the number today but as of 2005 IPIP items have been translated into more than 25 languages other than English and research published in more than 80 journals have employed IPIP scales. Researchers like the IPIP web site because the items and scales are free, unlike personality inventories such as the NEO. There are free scoring keys. There are thousands of items. The site as tremendous breadth. It is a web site that has been useful to personality researchers. It has encyclopedic value. It belongs in the external links. Iss246 (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It would not be a policy violation to include the link, but I don't see how it adds to a reader's understanding of the article subject, nor does it seem to be authoritative. Ultimately, this comes down to (consensus) editorial discretion. I would favor excluding any external links for this article unless there is near unanimity for including them.- MrX 02:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Will leave the link in for a bit longer. But I agree with both Ronz and MrX. I cannot see why or how this external link adds to the reader's understanding of this topic and is certainly not authoritative? It also is providing free research for the developers of these 'selected' tests. And if included, we would obviously need to include many more external links too and many more personality tests that are currently being developed. Best solution seems to be to just delete this link.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

What are those many personality tests that have been developed at noncommercial sites? I would like to know about them. Iss246 (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think there is now consensus to just delete this link. I agree with both Ronz and MrX. I cannot see why or how this external link adds to the reader's understanding of this topic and is certainly not authoritative.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No. I am opposed to deleting the link. Iss246 (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus at this point, Mrm7171, especially if you include comments at WP:ELN. Your claiming that there is does not make it so. For now the link stays. If there is still no consensus in a reasonable time, please follow WP:DR. There are other appropriate procedures on Wikipedia when consensus cannot be reached. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The debate about whether or not to include a link to the International Personality Item Pool on the Personality Test page has been brought to my attention. I am John A. Johnson, Penn State Professor Emeritus of Psychology, the person who is listed on the IPIP website as the person who "has agreed to provide limited consultation on IPIP-related topics." I wanted to affirm that my "consultation" has always been limited to answering questions about the IPIP and that I have never received remuneration of any sort for providing this service. Therefore, the characterization of my services as "commercial" is completely erroneous. The same is true for the IPIP website and the Oregon Research Institute. Neither are commercial entities. In fact, the IPIP was developed as a reaction against the stranglehold of the commercialized personality testing industry. It is the opinion of the IPIP creator, Dr. Lewis R. Goldberg, that the restrictions placed on the use of personality tests by commercial publishers has seriously impeded the progress of scientific research on personality. The IPIP was therefore created to provide a public-domain alternative to commercial tests, and its popularity has be growing steadily since the site's inception. Unlike the content of commercial tests, IPIP items and scales can be freely copied, edited, rearranged, translated, and administered on the Web by any person. The IPIP site contains over 2,000 items and hundreds of professionally-developed scales that measure constructs similar to those in the major commercial personality inventories. Now, I am not an authority on what constitutes "encyclopedic value" in a Wikipedia article, but it seems to me that the IPIP has significant educational value.Hostirad (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi John Johnson. May I ask who was responsible for bringing... "The debate about whether or not to include a link to the International Personality Item Pool on the Personality Test page has been brought to my attention?"?Mrm7171 (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I also need to say, John Johnson, separarate to any other issues now raised, you could be anyone? Couldn't you? How do I know you are the owner of the website and the external link that you and iss246 are insisting must be included in this article? How do I know you don't charge money for your services?Mrm7171 (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If you doubt my identity, please browse to my professional webpage at http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/5/j5j/ , click on my online vita (where you will find a list of my published articles) and contact me through my official Penn State email address that is listed at the top of the vita. I will write back and confirm that I am Wikipedia editor Hostirad. It does not matter to me whether a link to the IPIP site (which I do not own) in the Personality Test wikipedia article. I have nowhere "insisted" nor will I ever "insist" on a link to the IPIP site. I simply wanted to correct the erroneous description of the IPIP site as a commercial site and provide an accurate description of what the site actually offers (this can be verified by browsing the site). I also wanted to confirm that I am not paid by either the owner of the IPIP website (Dr. Lewis R. Goldberg of the Oregon Research Institute) or by individuals who ask questions about the IPIP. To suggest that I am actually paid when I am not is an attack on my academic integrity, and I object to this mischaracterization. If anyone has questions about the actual nature of the IPIP website and its educational value or about my own professional work, I will be happy to answer them. Otherwise, I have nothing more to say on this subject.Hostirad (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Hostirad. Actually, any editor here could easily have requested that an admin go through the usual procedure to confirm your identity. But then, of course, if your identify was confirmed, there would be no opportunity for anyone to raise doubts about the veracity of your claims or to insinuate that you are a sockpuppet or coordinated operative of another editor in this discussion. You also should know that the standard template you received about conflict of interest applies to editing articles about the subject matter with COI; it does not apply to comments on talk pages. You can express yourself freely here. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It also applies to attempts to influence WP:CONSENSUS anywhere, including talk page discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Rest assured, Hostirad, you have committed no policy violation and you are fully entitled to express your opinions here. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that remains to be seen. For example, how was he alerted of this dispute? Elizium23 (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

That was my question too? Remains unanswered?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Elizium and Mrm, seek administrative investigation and action about your suspicions if you feel the need, but cease the attempts to create an impression of guilt by repeated and unsubstantiated insinuations. If you think Hostirad has violated policy, then the appropriate course of action is to request that an admin begin an investigation. If that is not your plan, then drop the issue. If you continue I won't hesitate to discuss your comments at WP:ANI. The insinuations can go both ways, you know. If the prevailing tactic here is to accuse by insinuation, you two are just as vulnerable as anyone here. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, once again with the ANI threat again, 75., that old canard is getting tiresome and boring coming from you. You're more than welcome to try and drag me there. Meanwhile I stand by what I said. Meatpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing are both prohibited by Wikipedia policy. The fact that Hostirad asserts he was alerted to this discussion, combined with the fact that Hostirad has never edited anything else in seven years of holding an account, combined with the fact that there is no message on Hostirad's user talk page pointing him here before his post, points to some kind of off-wiki coordination. It's simple induction that I am using, I am not insinuating anything. I have done nothing actionable by administrators and frankly there is nothing that can be done in an administrator's investigation, if the coordination or canvassing has been done under the radar, it could well have been done in online chat, email, phone call, what have you: that is not findable by anyone on Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm . . . maybe you're on to something here. Meatpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing . . . Mrm and Elizium . . . hmmm?? 75.177.156.78 (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether he is the owner of the website, he is now a Wikipedia editor who has expressed an opinion. He is part of this consensus discussion, and your doubts about who he represents himself to be does not make his opinion here any better or worse than your own. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

He is an editor, albeit one with a declared conflict of interest and possibly in violation of rules against coordinated editing and rules about canvassing. So his opinion here can be discounted as a matter of course. For what it's worth. I oppose inclusion of the link unless its relevance and intrinsic worth can be proven through WP:RS. Elizium23 (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Collapsing unhelpful comments. Please keep the discussion focused on content, not contributors

Thank you for your input Elizium23. And your experience as an editor. I am finding the tone and agression of 75.177.156.78 quite offensive actually. Elizium23 can you or another experienced editor please direct us here, regarding this new editor Hostirad's, response and 75.177.156.78 backing it up. This is all pretty odd, to say the least!Mrm7171 (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC) Mrm7171, if you are insinuating that I am actually Hostirad or that I have somehow coordinated his participation here, I encourage you to seek a checkuser and any other method at Wikipedia's disposal to check it out. Otherwise, back off of the insinuations. "Tone and aggression" are issues you have had problems with in this and other places during your edit history. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC) It was Elizium23 who made those very reasonable judgements and comments regarding conflict of interest etc. So calm yourself down IP?Mrm7171 (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC) No, it was YOU, Mrm7171, who made the insinuation about "this new editor Hostirad's response and 75.177.156.78 backing it up". So once again, ask an admin to check it out or back off of the insinuations. I could easily insinuate sinister activities you may have engaged in here and elsewhere, but that would assume bad faith, something that doesn't seem to concern you. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC) Calm yourself down and stop with the paranoia and scary quotes. You don't intimidate me! Also any editor can clearly read Elizium23's comments above. I think they are very measured. Elizium23 has also notified Hostirad on their talk page. If Elizium23 wanted to intitiate further action I'm sure they are more than competent in doing so. But watch your mouth with me.Mrm7171 (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC) Stop patronizing me and using insulting terms about me. You don't intimidate me either. "Watch your mouth with me"? Is that a threat? 75.177.156.78 (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said, any editor can clearly read Elizium23's comments above regarding conflict of interest and "possibly in violation of rules against coordinated editing and rules about canvassing." Elizium23's comments seemed reasonable to me. I think they are very measured. Elizium23 has also now notified Hostirad on their talk page regarding conflict of interest. If Elizium23 wanted to initiate further action I'm sure they are more than competent in doing so as an experienced editor.Mrm7171 (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

IPIP has substantial worth for Wikipedia readers, many of whom are students. The IPIP is a boon to unfunded and under-funded research in personality. Undergraduates and graduate students (and professors and other investigators) with an interest in personality research can obtain scales from the noncommercial IPIP site at no cost. I don't know of as vast an effort in psychology to make as many items and scales freely available. Iss246 (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Citations to prove this would be necessary at this point to overturn consensus in favor of keeping the link. We need proof, not just assertions in a vacuum. Elizium23 (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Elizium23's logic here regarding citations needed to overturn consensus. When 5 independent editors all agree that the best solution is to delete the link, perhaps that should just be the solution and move on?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus at the present time. If you want to change the link to a citation, it would be quite easy to seek help from an uninvolved editor at WT:PSY. Or are you concerned that letting others who actually know something about the topic might sway consensus against you? 75.177.156.78 (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Elizium23 said "citations to prove this would be necessary at this point to overturn consensus....." I agreed with this logic. Seems like a consensus to me too? 5 editors in favor 2 against? Consensus?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No consensus. Consensus is not a vote. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a good deal of research that depends on the IPIP.Iss246 (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC) I provide some asked-for examples of citations:

Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C., & Gough, H. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal Of Research In Personality, 40(1), 84-96. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007

Buchanan, T., Johnson, J. A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2005). Implementing a Five-Factor Personality Inventory for Use on the Internet. European Journal Of Psychological Assessment, 21(2), 115-127. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.21.2.115

Socha, A., Cooper, C. A., & McCord, D. M. (2010). Confirmatory factor analysis of the M5-50: An implementation of the International Personality Item Pool item set. Psychological Assessment, 22(1), 43-49. doi:10.1037/a0017371

Schell, K. L., & Oswald, F. L. (2013). Item grouping and item randomization in personality measurement. Personality And Individual Differences, 55(3), 317-321. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.03.008

Goldberg L., Johnson J., Gough H., et al. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal Of Research In Personality, 40(1), 84-96.

Lim, B., & Ployhart, R. E. (2006). Assessing the Convergent and Discriminant Validity of Goldberg's International Personality Item Pool: A Multitrait-Multimethod Examination. Organizational Research Methods, 9(1), 29-54. doi:10.1177/1094428105283193

Laverdière, O., Morin, A. S., & St-Hilaire, F. (2013). Factor structure and measurement invariance of a short measure of the Big Five personality traits. Personality And Individual Differences, 55(7), 739-743. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.06.008

Waiyavutti, C., Johnson, W., & Deary, I. J. (2011). Do personality scale items function differently in people with high and low IQ?. Psychological Assessment, doi:10.1037/a0026266

I could go on but I will stop here. These are very fine journals. The authors are hard-working researchers. Lewis Goldberg, a prime mover behind the IPIP, has been a very important researcher. Iss246 (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Based on these excellent sources I hereby reverse my position to support inclusion of the IPIP website. Elizium23 (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to find these sources Iss246. That sheds a lot of light on this issue. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Your welcome. Iss246 (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I have posted a link to this discussion at WT:PSY. That might get a few more knowledgeable opinions over the next few days. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Moving toward a solution

As I already proposed much earlier, it seems that the body of the article, would obviously be a better place for the IPIP test. Alongside all of the other reliably sourced examples of different personality tests. No better than others no worse. Just neutral. It is however completely misplaced in the external links section. We can obviously add a couple of those reliable sources. Seems most logical solution and we can all move on?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

If a clear consensus does not emerge, that might be a solution. But as I have stated elsewhere, an editor not involved in this dispute (perhaps from WT:PSY) should make such a change should it be needed. But for now, there is no consensus and we should wait to see if there are additional opinions over the next few days. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Quit declaring your finding on consensus. When you close a discussion then you can make a consensus determination. As it is, the discussion is still open and consensus appears to me to be clearly opposed to inclusion. However, that may change in light of the above sources given. Elizium23 (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Aren't the sources iss246 provided, just stating that the IPIP is a personality test? Just like any other personality test? If so, why don't we just include the IPIP under the 'Examples of personality tests of the Five Factor Model header,' in the article, rather than in the external links section. That's all I'm saying. Thoughts please.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

IPIP is not a test. It is a collection of public domain items that can be and have been used extensively in research and development of testing materials in the public domain. And before the link is changed to a citation in the article we should wait for consensus to see whether the link remains as is. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't have to "wait for consensus" to do anything. Per WP:BRD any editor here, involved or uninvolved, can simply make a WP:BOLD change, particularly if s/he feels it reflects an emergent consensus in the ongoing discussion. Then if someone objects, s/he can WP:REVERT and continue to discuss for a better understanding of consensus. For me, iss246's citations are a game-changer that would tend to dispel any previous consensus formed without knowledge of them. Elizium23 (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I am fully aware of BRD and what any editor can do. I expressed my opinion that we should wait for a consensus to avoid unnecessary reverts (possibly leading to an edit war) on an issue that obviously has considerable dispute. BRD began on this issue long ago. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Those who are aware of BRD therefore know that part of the idea is not to get mired in constant discussion but to move toward making another BOLD edit as quickly as possible. It's not an edit war when the bold edits arise out of discussion and only one revert is made before discussion continues. Elizium23 (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Those who are aware of BRD know that there are numerous solutions to content dispute, that BOLD editing is not the only solution, that discussion is a means of resolving disputes, and that a discussion of a few days is not getting "mired" in a discussion. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought IPIP was a test? This website says it is? http://www.personalitytest.net/? Now I'm confused by 75.177.156.78 saying it is not a personality test? I just want us to reach a solution here.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The link you provide describes one use of some of the items in a test (NEO). IPIP items can be used in tests, but the items included on IPIP's website do not a comprise a test, just items in the public domain that can be used in many tests. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The reliable sources provided above, by iss246, talk about the IPIP. That is, Goldberg's International Personality Item Pool. This website http://www.personalitytest.net/ also lists the IPIP as a personality test. Iss246's sources state it is a personality test? Is that right iss246? If so, I will make a bold edit here and include it in the examples section of the article and out of the external links section. Or someone else can?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, the website you link does not list IPIP as a personality test. It refers to a version of the NEO that uses items from IPIP. The test is NEO, not IPIP. And which of Iss246's sources state that IPIP is a test? 75.177.156.78 (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, this is the exact link I was just looking at http://www.personalitytest.net/ipip/ipipneo300.html. It definitely lists the IPIP as a personality test. It appears to be the same test as the one found under the external links section http://ipip.ori.org/. I'm confused 75.177.156.78, Iss246's sources listed earlier, are just saying the IPIP, http://www.personalitytest.net/ipip/ipipneo300.html is a personality test developed by Goldberg?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

And here is one of iss246's sources for the exact same personality test? Goldberg L., Johnson J., Gough H., et al. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal Of Research In Personality, 40(1), 84-96. I'm confused. Iss246's references just support the fact that the IPIP is a personality test. That's it. Nothing more nothing less. Mrm7171 (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

So, given the IPIP is just another personality test and that's all that iss246's sources say as well, why don't we just take it of the external links and place it in the body of the article, based on Wikipedia policy? That is, if it noteworthy it should be in the boidy of the article. Is this okay for a solution and to move forward?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The source does not identify IPIP as a test. IPIP is an item pool, not a test. Nowhere in that source (or any of the other sources) is IPIP identified as a test, because it is not a test. I don't mean this to be insulting (because maybe my explanation is not clear), but do you understand the difference between an item pool and a test? A test has items, but that doesn't mean that an item pool is a test. Look on IPIP's website. You'll see links to numerous tests that use items from the item pool. Maybe this analogy will help: A salad may contain lettuce, tomatoes, cucumbers, onions, and various other vegetables. The vegetable section of the supermarket is like IPIP. It is not a salad, but it contains the components that can be combined to make a salad. IPIP is not a test, but it has items that can be combined to make a test. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Believe me 75.177.156.78 I understand what a personality test is and a personality inventory. But that aside, this reliable source detailing Goldberg's IPIP clearly states on the first line: "Purpose of this On-Line Inventory" http://www.personalitytest.net/ipip/ipipneo300.html. The word inventory is often used in psychometrics in the place of the term test, by the way. Are you still saying Goldberg's IPIP it is not a test?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171, you are mistaken. The IPIP is not one personality test. The IPIP is a source of empirically derived items for personality scales. For example, there are IPIP items to form scales that measure the Big Five (creates a personality test) and more fine-grained facets of the Big Five. The IPIP contains items to construct scales that correspond to the scales on Cattell's 16PF. There are IPIP items that make up scales that correspond to the scales in the CPI, a major personality test. There are items that make up scales that help assess personality disorders (hence the interest of Cloninger in the IPIP). IPIP makes available the Oregon Vocational Interest Scales and the Oregon Avocational Interest Scales. There is more. The IPIP is very comprehensive. Iss246 (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry am I missing something here? http://www.personalitytest.net/ipip/ipipneo300.html.? This is the Goldberg test. The International Personality Item Pool (IPIP)? It is the one and the same as the personality test listed in the external links section of the article? Mrm7171 (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep. You're missing something. The IPIP contains items that configure the same way the NEO configures to measure the Big Five. There are other ways to measure personality in the IPIP as well. Iss246 (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

This reliable source detailing Goldberg's IPIP clearly states on the first line: "Purpose of this On-Line Inventory" http://www.personalitytest.net/ipip/ipipneo300.html. Are you still saying Goldberg's IPIP it is not a personality test/inventory?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid you're missing something. The link is not to the Goldberg test. It is to a version of the NEO that uses IPIP items. At the bottom of the webpage it says "The full IPIP contains 1,699 items assembled by Dr. Lewis R. Goldberg." That refers to all of the IPIP items. The NEO PI-R does not consist of all 1699 of the items. Again, IPIP is a collection of items, not a test. The items can be used in tests. Some of them are used in the NEO PI-R. "Goldberg's IPIP" refers to ALL 1699 ITEMS that can be used in many different tests. It doesn't say "Goldberg's test". IPIP refers to International Personality Item Pool. An item pool is not a test. I've explained this as simply as I can. Maybe someone else can explain it more clearly. But here is the bottom line: IPIP is not a test. So please don't refer to it in the article as a test. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The IPIP-NEO (International Personality Item Pool Representation of the NEO PI-R™) http://www.personalitytest.net/ipip/ipipneo300.html

That is is not the IPIP web site. Better to use the external link to go to the IPIP web site. I don't know what it is. It looks commercial but I don't want to spend a lot of time finding out. Please use the IPIP web site. Iss246 (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

No, this is definitely Goldberg's full IPIP personality inventory/test. This site personalitytest.net has an arrangement with Goldberg (which is iss246's sources provided above) to list his full IPIP right here: http://www.personalitytest.net/ipip/ipipneo300.html Click through yourselves. You will see the truth, I'm afraid to say. And yes, it is very commercial I agree.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

This is my final comment about this issue because you are refusing to get the point. IPIP is not a test and your saying it over and over does not make it a test. The NEO PI-R is not the same as all 1699 IPIP items. You are looking at the wrong website. Please click the IPIP link in the article for the correct website. So do not refer to IPIP in the article as a test or we will have yet another huge conflict. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Any editor who goes to this site can clearly see for themselves. Just because you say it isn't the same does not make it so. Goldberg's IPIP-NEO (International Personality Item Pool Representation of the NEO PI-R™) http://www.personalitytest.net/ipip/ipipneo300.html I provide reliable sources backing my comments up. Can you? Provide a reliable source that supports your words then.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

This link in the article and this link that you provide are not the same. They are different websites. Iss246 and I have provided more than enough evidence to confirm that IPIP is not a test. End of discussion. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Both 75.177.156.78 and I provided sufficient evidence to show that the IPIP is an item pool. The items can be assembled into reasonable scales to measure personality constructs. Iss246 (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The point here is whether this should be an external link in the Wikipedia article. On the IPIP website there are a number of tests. Goldberg's IPIP-NEO (International Personality Item Pool Representation of the NEO PI-R™) found here, and on the site in the article are one and the same: http://www.personalitytest.net/ipip/ipipneo300.html The IPIP-NEO is obviously a personality inventory/test. Further, including the IPIP in the external links section is not consistent with Wikipedia policy and myself and 4 other editors so far, have agreed. Wikipedia:External links/NoticeboardMrm7171 (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

THEY ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAME. Now please stop being so disruptive. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Calm yourself down 75.177.156.78. I am not being disruptive either and won't be intimidated by you, nor retaliate to your yelling and indeed screaming at me, in upper case bold, no less! You are going against the opinion of 5 independent editors who believe it is best to just leave that darn link out of the article's 'external links' section at least, and as Elizium23 said to you, you do not want to find a resolution apart from going against all other editor's opinion. I have suggested we integrate it into the article if it is noteworthy, so we could work toward a mutually acceptable solution, but you refused that as well.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171, you are changing your argument. First you advanced the view that IPIP was commercial, and therefore should not be included among the external links. 75.177.156.78 and I established that IPIP is noncommercial.

Then you objected that the site is not important enough (did not have "substantial worth") to be included among the external links. 75.177.156.78 and I established its substantial worth. I included a small sample of citations that have employed IPIP to show its importance in personality research. We met the objection.

You wrote, "I agree with Elizium23's logic here regarding citations needed to overturn consensus." I provided the citations. And Elizium23 recognized their value. You reneged.

Now you raise a specious objection based on a web site (http://www.personalitytest.net/ipip/ipipneo300.html) that cites IPIP but isn't the IPIP site. It is not clear that the new site you cite is Goldberg's. You could equally (but didn't) have shown that P. Spector's noncommercial web site on research resources cites the IPIP web site. Spector's site is a highly regarded, noncommercial site. Instead you chose this questionable personality test site.

It is not appropriate to keep switching lines of argument because 75.177.156.78 and I met your objections. Let's leave the link in place. Iss246 (talk) 04:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it is very odd to continue arguing for its place in the "External links" section. I think what should happen is that someone should write a description of how this works and how it relates to personality tests and make a new section about it and work it into a citation or external link from the body of the article. Just throwing it into "External links" without adequate explanation is just lazy. Elizium23 (talk) 05:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

As per your suggestion Elizium23, I edited the text next to the link to the IPIP web site. Iss246 (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I also find it very strange that this argument continues so full on. I'm fine with Elizium23's suggestion. I also suggested to perhaps integrate it within the article body, if it is noteworthy enough, as you both say. Also balanced with all other personality tests and well referenced. Just make note of it in the article and put a reliable source with it. Simple.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Point is, any inclusion needs to add value to the encyclopedia and the reader. That has been my point all along. This link is also not authoritative as other editors like MrX have already noted. If noteworthy just add something within the article itself and long as it is well sourced and balanced with all of the other information as I said.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It has not been your "point all along." Mrm, your original point was that the IPIP site was a commercial site, your original justification for deleting it. 75.177.156.78 and I showed that the point is invalid. Iss246 (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to say, looking at that link again on the article page again, there is a professor advertising his consulting services (for free or for a fee? who knows, and very often in psychometric test development, tests are firstly offered free to develop a 'comparison group,' and then for later commercial sale. And although they are obviously on different websites 75.177.156.78, Goldberg's IPIP-NEO (International Personality Item Pool Representation of the NEO PI-R™) found here in the article link, is also on this http://www.personalitytest.net/ipip/ipipneo300.html and other commercial websites. I'm sorry, far too many different reasons to not include it as an external link, especially when it could be added within the article body instead (if noteworthy)?Mrm7171 (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The current external link to http://www.ori.org/ is advertising and promoting a small number of US researchers it seems. Why not UK or Australian or Chinese researchers?? Limited number of tests, and consulting services as well as commercial research grants. Subjective points of view. It is of no value to readers. It is not authoritative. It advertises consulting services. It lists a small group of personality tests without representing hundreds of other psych tests. Wikipedia should not be used for promotion. Seems most logical to leave all such 'external links' out, unless all editors agree on inclusion These are some of my points all along.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

ORI is a noncommercial research organization that does very fine psychological research. As I said in another context, Mrm7171 you would not delete a link to the Cold Spring Harbor laboratory because it is a stand-alone, noncommercial organization that conducts biological research. A similar principle applies to a fine psychological research organization. Every research organization does not have to be attached to a university. Moreover, if you can identify a stand-alone organization in China that sustains important psychological research, you should include a link to it. Iss246 (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward

I like Mrm7171's suggestion that the IPIP be moved into the body of the article rather than as just an external link. If it is important enough to link to, it is important enough to discuss in the article with a hyperlink to the IPIP Wiki article. It could go in the Example subsection, but it might also go in the second paragraph of the article. That paragraph mentions three tests that are all commercial. The IPIP is public domain, so it would offer a counterbalance to the commercial tests mentioned. I also suggest that it be described as Goldberg, its creator, describes it. He named it the IPI pool, and describes it as a set of items that can be used to create measures of individual variables (see quote below--this article can be accessed from the IPIP website).

"Goldberg (1999a) suggested that placing a set of personality items in the public domain might free researchers from the constraints imposed by copyrighted personality inventories. Hence, the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) was born. Not only may researchers freely use the items in the IPIP in any way they see fit, but they can also rapidly and easily access the items from the IPIP Web site at http://ipip.ori.org/....The IPIP has grown from an initial set of 1252 items to well over 2000 items, and new sets of items are added each year." Source: Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. C. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84-96.Psyc12 (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

There appears to be an article already on International Personality Item Pool and psyc12 & iss246 have begun working on it. Obviously just link to that article within the personality test article giving due weight to any mention of IPIP, and balanced with all of the other personality tests and information? I will go ahead and do that.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

This whole article seems to be including specific 'brand' tests. I am uncomfortable with the article as it stands, as it clearly does not come close to representing the wide array of personality tests available worldwide. Perhaps the article should be discussing models of personality and other aspects of personality assessment, not a focus on a list of selected commercial brands as this article appears to be doing? I'm now wondering how this is handled in medical articles and how commercial drug 'brands' are mentioned in Wiki articles?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Both iss246 & 75.177.156.78 have continued to add even more to the external link while we are discussing whether to include it or not? Can either editor please revert this further addition to the external links section under discussion, as a good faith gesture. Making changes during discussion is not helpful, and can be seen as edit warring. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171, I don't delete what you write even if I don't agree with it. You deleted something I wrote on this page. Iss246 (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, if I had inadvertently iss246. It was definitely not intended. Must have occurred during an edit conflict? I think I was writing something the same time you were. Anyway, please re-add that section to this discussion. Or I will. I have never deleted any editors comments.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks Mrm7171. Those things can happen during an edit conflict. Iss246 (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Have restored that section below. I meant the 'edit conflict message' that comes up on the screen, when another editor is writing something at the same time, and that message comes up. Anyway as I said, it was definitely not intentional.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

That is a problem in personality research. A number of commonly used tests are proprietary (e.g., the NEO, 16PF, the MBI). Because a test such as the NEO is commonly used in research, it has to be mentioned at some point. Don't get me wrong. The NEO is a good test. One of my students who was studying (cognitive,emotional, and behavioral) jealousy and the Big Five used the NEO because a version of it had a special property that the IPIP scales don't have (not to my knowledge). There is a version of the NEO that allows another person to complete the personality items as they bear on a target person. An investigator could evaluate the correspondence between the self-rated Big Five and the other-rated Big Five. My student could compare self-rated NEO scales with dimensions of jealousy and other-rated NEO scales and dimensions of jealousy. I don't underrate the research value of instruments like the NEO.

The advantage of the IPIP is that is freely available to researchers. And many researchers have taken advantage of it although not my student. Though she did win an award for her research. Iss246 (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: The current link description as of this edit seems a little verbose, contrary to what is advised by WP:LAYOUTEL. External link sections should not resemble prose.- MrX 01:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

  Very verbose indeed. --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I have was trying to follow a recommendation made by editor Elizium23. Iss246 (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Elizium23 did not say to "add further to external links section" iss246. They suggested adding IPIP to the body of the article, which I have and psyc12 has as well. That seems logical. I have not reverted, but obviously, adding further text to this external links section, while editors are working toward a solution and whether it should be deleted completely, is not helpful. Please consider reverting while we are trying to discuss here.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Now that IPIP is mentioned in the body of the article with a link to the IPIP article itself, is there consensus that we can delete the external link because it is no longer needed?Psyc12 (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Definitely.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I support that. The EL should then be added to the IPIP article. - MrX 15:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I accept the change. Iss246 (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Process Communication Model (PCM)

Process Communication Model describes the work of Taibi Kahler. It is a model of human communication and personality, it is not a test itself. The underlying personality test is the Personality Pattern Inventory. My edits to clarify this have been reverted with no discussion. I appreciate that the Taibi Kahler page is in need of attention. I intend tidying it up, adding links to it from the aspects of Transactional Analysis which cite his work and making a main page for Process Communication Model. Editing this page is a first step in the process of disambiguation. aeon-lakes 01:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Without discussion?? If you take the time to look at my edit summary in the revert, I removed it because the source did not verify what was written in the article. That is the primary issue. Another problem relates to notability. Just because a test exists doesn't mean it belongs in the article. I could create the ABC test and place it in the article, but that doesn't mean it should be there. I propose that any test in the list that does not have a Wikipedia article or a citation to a source that verifies its notability (not just its existence) should be removed. I see no evidence that Personality Pattern Inventory is notable. Kahler has an article, and you can improve it if you wish. But a good article about Kahler does not make the test notable enough to include. Sundayclose (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

If you read the Taibi Kahler article, you'll see that a previous editor (not me) mentions the PPI as a test associated with PCM and Kahler in that article.

I guess it depends on how "notable" it all needs to be?

If you do google searches for Kahler and PCM or Process Communication Model or Kahler and PPI you will find hits a-plenty. Process Communication Model is apparently notable enough for another editor to place it on this page, I didn't add it. I am trying to disambiguate and make the information on this page accurate. The Kahler PPI is a test. PCM is a model. This page is about tests, is it not?

The Kahler PPI was used at NASA, which makes it historically interesting, as astronauts are surely still notable; the underlying psychological model is used by Call Centres to screen and connect callers using Process Communication Model based algorithms from a NASDAQ listed technology company(Mattersight Corporation); companies offering Process Communication Model training are active on five continents ; and Kahler's page itself is of interest to two wikipedia projects. I would argue therefore that it has sufficient notability for inclusion. It certainly isn't my invention, placed on the page.

Current referencing on the Taibi Kahler page is, I agree, poor quality. I have access to more primary sources (including the original academic articles detailing model) rather than secondary, so I've not added them to the page per wikipedia guidelines. The current Taibi Kahler page is really only a stub — I wish to improve it. A full page for the psychological Process Communication Model is needed. But these inaccuracies and holes in wikipedia remain while we edit war. Please revert back to my edit, which is a more accurate entry for a page on tests, or open a dispute. aeon-lakes 02:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Google hits is not evidence of notability. If you know how to do the search, almost anything can get lots of Google hits. And who placed it in the article is beside the point. The quality of the Kahler article is beside the point. Other "holes" on Wikipedia are beside the point. The point is that notability needs to be clearly established for this (as well as some other tests listed) either by creating a PPI article that clearly explains and sources notability, or by citations in this article. So far I've seen nothing to suggest notability. "While we edit war" -- no, while you edit war. You have provided no basis for me to revert my edit. Your saying the test is notable doesn't make it notable. I'll revert when I see the evidence, or if there is a clear consensus here. Sundayclose (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

This page remains inaccurate due to 'Process Communication Model' being listed as a test. Editor Sundayclose appears to be following me around undoing my good-faith edits because he/she took objection to my disambiguating Process Communication Model. I suggest that another editor determines the fate of the entry on 'Process Communication Model' in this list of personality tests. PCM isn't lacking in notability (see above and the Taibi Kahler page) and the addition of the Kahler PPI as its associated test is merely clarification. aeon-lakes 09:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's clarify something. No one is "following you around" when policy and guidelines regarding sourcing and notability (cornerstones of Wikipedia) are at issue. And no one is focused on you. The focus is on the quality of the article. Please be careful about false accusations against editors. As for your "good faith" edits, to paraphrase Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. If the entry is inaccurate because PCM is not a test, then remove PCM; don't make it worse by adding unsourced and non-notable information. And by the way, since so far you are a single purpose account focusing almost entirely on Kahler and the PPI, are you in any way affiliated with Kahler or the PPI? Sundayclose (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Personality test/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs references

Last edited at 15:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 02:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Personality test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130605085027/http://filebox.vt.edu/r/rammu/Research%20Methods%20Articles/Hogan.pdf to http://filebox.vt.edu/r/rammu/Research%20Methods%20Articles/Hogan.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320081037/http://www.truecolorsassociation.org/faq.php to http://www.truecolorsassociation.org/faq.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121231085101/http://bluesagestrategies.com/pro-d.html to http://www.bluesagestrategies.com/pro-d.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Personality test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131027081900/http://www.ssca.com/resources/articles/104 to http://www.ssca.com/resources/articles/104

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Self- vs. Observer reports

Under the "Biased test taker interpretation" section information about observer reports could be added. Self reports can be tainted by the person not knowing their personality as well as they think, or faking answers to questions to receive more desirable test results (for social, work related, or personal reasons), both intentionally or unintentionally. This is where observer reports come in. People may act differently than they realize, therefore, observer reports may give more accurate information in that sense. The down sides to observer reports include the observer only observing the person in certain situations, not being able to read the person very well, and the observer's own desire to give bias or incorrect answers. It is very likely people act differently in different environments. If a work peer is evaluating someone they are likely to give different answers than close friends. However, just because an observer spends time with someone in multiple situations does not mean they can accurately interpret actions for what they really are. Finally, the observer may give bias answers. A spouse may over exaggerate their partners caring tenancies, a mother may only want to see the good in her child, an ex-friend may falsely over highlight negative qualities. --Kbuecker (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Article Evaluation for Personality Theory

In this article I did not notice a bias towards any one idea, all the information seemed to be neutral. However, there were some things that I noticed, that I think there could be improvements on. The first thing that I noticed was at times, there were unnecessary words that were added into the sentences. There also seemed to be a lot more information and sources used on certain subtopics compared to other topics. It makes it seem like not all the information in the article is important when there is a shortage of sources and knowledge for certain areas. I also think that more up to date sources could provide a better backing for the information that is being used, a lot of the sources are from the 90s or the early 2000s. One last thing that I noticed was that it talks about the different types of personality tests but does not really explain whether or not those tests are reliable or valid. Jadeynmetcalf (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

More information is needed on current and future research

The "additional applications" and "psychological research" sections are very bare, and these could be greatly expanded on. Psychological research could include more information about future research on more accurate tests, such as the HEXACO assessment. A section about the direction that the field is heading is needed, since it is a constantly researched topic with a lot going on currently. I also did not see anywhere how the Big-5 assessment holds prominence due to its wide-spread usage and proven reliability, and this does not necessarily make it the most accurate assessment. In this "future research" section, something should also be said about the role of technology in personality assessments, since this is bringing new light to the field and is already making drastic changes to personality tests as we know them. Technology changes the conventional idea of a personality test being a multiple choice test--it does so with implementations of big data, gamification, wearable technology, and more (https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/cpb-cpb0000106.pdf). These and even other areas of research are changing the field and are undoubtedly significant to the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Personality Dude (talk • contribs) 01:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)