Assessment, whether it is carried out with interviews, behavioral observations, physiological measures, or tests, is intended to permit the evaluator to make meaningful, valid, and reliable statements about individuals. What makes John Doe tick? What makes Mary Doe the unique individual that she is? Whether these questions can be answered depends upon the reliability and validity of the assessment methods used. The fact that a test is intended to measure a particular attribute is in no way a guarantee that it really accomplishes this goal. Assessment techniques must themselves be assessed.
Evaluation techniques
Personality instruments measure samples of behaviour. Their evaluation involves primarily the determination of reliability and validity. Reliability often refers to consistency of scores obtained by the same persons when retested. Validity provides a check on how well the test fulfills its function. The determination of validity usually requires independent, external criteria of whatever the test is designed to measure. An objective of research in personality measurement is to delineate the conditions under which the methods do or do not make trustworthy descriptive and predictive contributions. One approach to this problem is to compare groups of people known through careful observation to differ in a particular way. It is helpful to consider, for example, whether the MMPI or TAT discriminates significantly between those who show progress in psychotherapy and those who do not, whether they distinguish between law violators of record and apparent nonviolators. Experimental investigations that systematically vary the conditions under which subjects perform also make contributions.
Although much progress has been made in efforts to measure personality, all available instruments and methods have defects and limitations that must be borne in mind when using them; responses to tests or interview questions, for example, often are easily controlled or manipulated by the subject and thus are readily “fakeable.” Some tests, while useful as group screening devices, exhibit only limited predictive value in individual cases, yielding frequent (sometimes tragic) errors. These caveats are especially poignant when significant decisions about people are made on the basis of their personality measures. Institutionalization or discharge, and hiring or firing, are weighty personal matters and can wreak great injustice when based on faulty assessment. In addition, many personality assessment techniques require the probing of private areas of the individual’s thought and action. Those who seek to measure personality for descriptive and predictive reasons must concern themselves with the ethical and legal implications of their work.
A major methodological stumbling block in the way of establishing the validity of any method of personality measurement is that there always is an element of subjective judgment in selecting or formulating criteria against which measures may be validated. This is not so serious a problem when popular, socially valued, fairly obvious criteria are available that permit ready comparisons between such groups as convicted criminals and ostensible noncriminals, or psychiatric hospital patients and noninstitutionalized individuals. Many personality characteristics, however, cannot be validated in such directly observable ways (e.g., inner, private experiences such as anxiety or depression). When such straightforward empirical validation of an untested measure hopefully designed to measure any personality attribute is not possible, efforts at establishing a less impressive kind of validity (so-called construct validity) may be pursued. A construct is a theoretical statement concerning some underlying, unobservable aspect of an individual’s characteristics or of his internal state. (“Intelligence,” for example, is a construct; one cannot hold “it” in one’s hand, or weigh “it,” or put “it” in a bag, or even look at “it.”) Constructs thus refer to private events inferred or imagined to contribute to the shaping of specific public events (observed behaviour). The explanatory value of any construct has been considered by some theorists to represent its validity. Construct validity, therefore, refers to evidence that endorses the usefulness of a theoretical conception of personality. A test designed to measure an unobservable construct (such as “intelligence” or “need to achieve”) is said to accrue construct validity if it usefully predicts the kinds of empirical criteria one would expect it to—e.g., achievement in academic subjects.
The degree to which a measure of personality is empirically related to or predictive of any aspect of behaviour observed independently of that measure contributes to its validity in general. A most desirable step in establishing the usefulness of a measure is called cross-validation. The mere fact that one research study yields positive evidence of validity is no guarantee that the measure will work as well the next time; indeed, often it does not. It is thus important to conduct additional, cross-validation studies to establish the stability of the results obtained in the first investigation. Failure to cross-validate is viewed by most testing authorities as a serious omission in the validation process. Evidence for the validity of a full test should not be sought from the same sample of people that was used for the initial selection of individual test items. Clearly this will tend to exaggerate the effect of traits that are unique to that particular sample of people and can lead to spuriously high (unrealistic) estimates of validity that will not be borne out when other people are studied. Cross-validation studies permit assessment of the amount of “shrinkage” in empirical effectiveness when a new sample of subjects is employed. When evidence of validity holds up under cross-validation, confidence in the general usefulness of test norms and research findings is enhanced. Establishment of reliability, validity, and cross-validation are major steps in determining the usefulness of any psychological test (including personality measures).
Clinical versus statistical prediction
Another measure of assessment research has to do with the role of the assessor himself as an evaluator and predictor of the behaviour of others. In most applied settings he subjectively (even intuitively) weighs, evaluates, and interprets the various assessment data that are available. How successful he is in carrying out his interpretive task is critical, as is knowledge of the kinds of conditions under which he is effective in processing such diverse data as impressions gathered in an interview, test scores, and life-history data. The typical clinician usually does not use a statistical formula that weighs and combines test scores and other data at his disposal. Rather, he integrates the data using impressions and hunches based on his past clinical experience and on his understanding of psychological theory and research. The result of this interpretive process usually includes some form of personality description of the person under study and specific predictions or advice for that person.
The degree of success an assessor has when he responds to the diverse information that may be available about a particular person is the subject of research that has been carried out on the issue of clinical versus statistical prediction. It is reasonable to ask whether a clinician will do as good a job in predicting behaviour as does a statistical formula or “cookbook”—i.e., a manual that provides the empirical, statistically predictive aspects of test responses or scores based on the study of large numbers of people.
An example would be a book or table of typical intelligence test norms (typical scores) used to predict how well children perform in school. Another book might offer specific personality diagnoses (e.g., neurotic or psychotic) based on scores such as those yielded by the different scales of the MMPI. Many issues must be settled before the deceptively simple question of clinical versus statistical prediction can be answered definitively.
When statistical prediction formulas (well-supported by research) are available for combining clinical information, however, experimental evidence clearly indicates that they will be more valid and less time-consuming than will a clinician (who may be subject to human error in trying to simultaneously consider and weigh all of the factors in a given case). The clinician’s chief contributions to diagnosis and prediction are in situations for which satisfactory formulas and quantified information (e.g., test scores) are not available. A clinician’s work is especially important when evaluations are required for rare and idiosyncratic personality characteristics that have escaped rigorous, systematic empirical study. The greatest confidence results when both statistical and subjective clinical methods simultaneously converge (agree) in the solution of specific clinical problems.
Irwin G. Sarason