A protocol for investigating the process underlying responses in personality assessments
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-4327e3020Keywords:
Personality measures, Personality disorders, Test validityAbstract
The literature investigating the process underlying the answers given in self-report tests for personality assessments is scarce. This study aimed to develop a protocol to investigate the response process of people who responded to a self-report instrument for personality assessment. It also sought evidence of content validity for this protocol. The protocol presented focused on grandiosity, representing the narcissistic functioning. A total of 35 people answered the Dimensional Clinical Personality Inventory (IDCP) and the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). Favorable evidence was identified, indicating the proper functioning of the developed protocol, since the literature showed consistent information about it. For example, it was observed that people who scored higher in grandiosity on self-report tests were those who chose the alternatives that represented grandiosity characteristics and were also those who presented a higher baseline to consider someone as narcissistic. The protocol is expected to be replicable by other researchers who aim to verify the response strategies adopted in self-report type personality tests.
Downloads
References
Acklin, M. W., & Wu-Holt, P. (1996). Contributions of cognitive science to the Rorschach technique: Cognitive and neuropsychological correlates of the response process. Journal of Personality Assessment, 67(1), 169-178. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6701_13
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). The standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: AERA.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5 (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Backlund, L., Skanér, Y., Montgomery, H., Bring, J., & Strender, L.-E. (2003). Doctor’s decision process in a drug-prescription task: The validity of rating scales and think-aloud reports. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91(1), 108-117. doi:10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00529-0
Barnhofer, T., Jong-Meyer, R., Kleinpass, A., & Nikesch, S. (2002). Specificity of autobiographical memories in depression: An analysis of retrieval processes in a think-aloud task. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41(Pt 4), 411-416.
Bornstein, R. F. (2007). Toward a process-based framework for classifying personality tests: Comment on Meyer and Kurtz (2006). Journal of Personality Assessment, 89(2), 202-207. doi:10.1080/00223890701518776
Carvalho, L. F. (2014). Avaliação dos transtornos da personalidade no Brasil: O Inventário Dimensional Clínico da Personalidade [Personality disorders assessment in Brazil: The Dimensional Clinical Personality Inventory]. In C. R. Campos & T. C. Nakano (Orgs.), Avaliação psicológica direcionada a populações específicas: Técnicas, métodos e estratégias [Psychological assessment directed to specific populations: Techniques, methods and strategies] (pp. 163-180). São Paulo, SP: Vetor.
Carvalho, L. F., & Primi, R. (2015). Development and internal structure investigation of the Dimensional Clinical Personality Inventory (DCPI). Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 28(2), 322-330. doi:10.1590/1678-7153.201528212
Carvalho, L. F., & Primi, R. (2016). Prototype matching of personality disorders with the Dimensional Clinical Personality Inventory. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 32(2), e322214. doi:10.1590/0102-3772e322214
Carvalho, L. F., Primi, R., & Stone, G. E. (2014). Psychometric properties of the Inventário Dimensional Clínico da Personalidade (IDCP) using the Rating Scale Model. Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana, 32(3), 433-446. doi:10.12804/apl32.03.2014.09
Carvalho, L. F., & Sette, C. P. (2017). Revision of the criticism avoidance dimension of the Dimensional Clinical Personality Inventory. Estudos de Psicologia (Campinas), 34(2), 219-231. doi:10.1590/1982-02752017000200004
Carvalho, L. F., & Silva, G. F. C. (2016). Review of the self-sacrifice dimension of the clinical Dimensional Personality Inventory. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 29, 6. doi:10.1186/s41155-016-0022-z
Castillo-Díaz, M., & Padilla, J. L. (2013). How cognitive interviewing can provide validity evidence of the response processes to scale items. Social Indicators Research, 114(3), 963-975. doi:10.1007/s11205-012-0184-8.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1999). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Exner, J. E., Jr. (1996). Critical bits and the Rorschach response process. Journal of Personality Assessment, 67(3), 464-477. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6703_3
Gadermann, A. M., Guhn, M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2011). Investigating the substantive aspect of construct validity for the satisfaction with life scale adapted for children: A focus on cognitive processes. Social Indicators Research, 100(1), 37-60. doi:10.1007/s11205-010-9603-x
Kirschbaum, C., & Hoelz, J. C. (2014). A confiança em situações ambivalentes e incongruentes: A utilização de vinhetas como método exploratório [Confidence in ambivalent and incongruent situations: The use of vignettes as an exploratory method] RAM: Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 15(3), 42-68. doi:10.1590/1678-69712014/administracao.v15n3p42-68
Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., & Skodol, A. E. (2012). Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Medicine, 42(9), 1879-1890. doi:10.1017/S0033291711002674
Langston, C. A., & Sykes, W. E. (1997). Beliefs and the big five: Cognitive bases of broad individual differences in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 31(2), 141-165. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1997.2178
Millon, T. (2011). Disorders of personality: Introducing a DSM/ICD spectrum from normal to abnormal (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Padilla, J. L., & Benítez, I. (2014). Validity evidence based on response processes. Psicothema, 26(1), 136-144. doi:10.7334/psicothema2013.259
Ployhart, R. E., & Ehrhart, M. G. (2003). Be careful what you ask for: Effects of response instructions on the construct validity and reliability of situational judgment tests. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(1), 1-16. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00222
Reze, B. (2014). O processo de decisão da mãe sobre a cirurgia cardíaca para o filho [The decision process of the mother on the cardiac surgery for the son]. Psicologia: Ciência e Profissão, 34(2), 288-301. doi:10.1590/1982-3703000072012
Sireci, S. G. (2012, April). “De-constructing” test validation. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Vancouver, Canada.
Webber, M. P., & Huxley, P. J. (2007). Measuring access to social capital: The validity and reliability of the Resource Generator-UK and its association with common mental disorder. Social Science & Medicine, 65(3), 481-492. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.03.030
World Medical Association. (2013). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. JAMA. 310 (20), 2191–2194. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.281053
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Regarding the availability of contents, Paideia adopts the Creative Commons License, CC-BY. With this licence anyone is allowed to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, as well as to remix, transform, and create from the material for any purpose, even commercial, giving the proper copyright credits to the journal, providing a link to the licence and indicating if changes have been made.
Partial reproduction of other publications
Quotations of more than 500 words, reproductions of one or more figures, tables or other illustrations must have written permission from the copyright holder of the original work for the reproduction specified in the Paidéia journal. Permission should be addressed to the author of the submitted manuscript. Secondarily obtained rights will not be transferred under any circumstance.
