Objective vs. Projective Personality Assessments

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Various personality tests have a basis for the different assumptions concerning the manifestation of psychological problems. The question of why people have different personality traits has been there since the beginning of humanity. Objective and projective personality tests have assisted in solving this by focusing on the human behavioral aspects. Such traits include culture, learning, development, and social interactions.

The two personality tests also utilize the study of pathology, genetics, and physiology to identify the reason behind the varying human personality traits. Objective tests have a resistance to biased influences, and they are precise and accurate. On the other hand, projective tests are not as accurate because the use of clients’ responses tends to confuse the interpretation of the test scores. This paper will compare and contrast the objective and projective personality assessments and highlight the legal and ethical implications of using the assessments on minors.

Personality tests have the design of testing and determining permanent traits, which help predict the temperament and behavior of a person. These tests have undergone various changes since they were introduced, and their evolution has resulted in different tests designed for specific applications (Camati & Enembreck, 2020) Some examples of projective tests are sentence completion tests, TEMAS (Tell-Me-A-Story), and the Contemporized-Themes Concerning Black Test (Costantino et al., 2020). All these tests employ ambiguous stimuli, such as images or words, to get a response from the client.

Objective assessments minimize ambiguity since the individuals select a response that best suits them from a range of provided answers. Some examples include NEO-FFI and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) (Gogniat et al., 2022). This research will focus on the NEO-FFI and TEMAS tests to highlight the similarities and differences between the two main personality assessments.

The major similarity between TEMAS and NEO-FFI tests is that both of them are techniques used to provide the personality traits of various individuals. TEMAS test is widely used among various cultures and has been tailored for individuals between ages five and eighteen, while NEO-FFI applies to any age (Costantino et al., 2020). When conducting the TEMAS test, the client views each card and narrates the story described there, including what happened before and what will follow (Ihsan & Furnham, 2018; Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2013). These situations help identify the precise content relevant to understanding the child’s psychopathology and personality. On the other hand, NEO-FFI uses FFM, which is the five-factor model and five-point Likert scale, to evaluate the responses (Reynolds et al., 2021).

TEMAS test has a wide range of answers since it depends on the client’s responses towards the cards, and they have no limitation on how to respond. NEO-FFI provides the clients with specific answers that they should stick to, and they range from ‘very likely to ‘not likely’ (Gogniat et al., 2022). Objective tests are hence more structured since they do not depend on the clients’ narrations.

Objective personality assessments are less subjective to answer distortions because they have a true or false method of scoring. This feature positively impacts the accuracy and reliability of the results, hence improving the strategy’s effectiveness. NEO-FFI does not allow individuals to know the link between their responses and the conclusions made by the evaluator (Stedman et al., 2018). On the other hand, projective tests use a scoring system derived from a code-free form of responses. This assessment does not report facts. Instead, it uses the imaginations of the respondent to structure the various ambiguous situations (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2013).

The lack of a rigid structure reduces the accuracy and effectiveness of the test (Stedman et al., 2018). TEMAS cards entail different scenes showing several psychological dilemmas, which the tester presents in the form of conflicts (Costantino et al., 2020). For example, the TEMAS cards might entail a conflict whereby a child needs to choose between helping her mother with chores and playing with friends. In this case, the individual needs to narrate what happened before and what will happen after. There is no true or false structure, and this might result in the misinterpretation of the respondent’s personality traits.

Objective tests do not consider that different participants have different experiences, and this increases their ambiguity. The NEO-FFI test has the design of removing these ambiguities to improve scoring (Gogniat et al., 2022). However, it attracted a lot of criticism, one of them being that the examiner makes the assumption that all the questions have the same meaning to the respondents (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2013). For example, if the test asks how often a certain behavior is performed, the respondents might have different definitions of ‘often,’ and this will affect their response (Reynolds et al., 2021; Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2013).

A lot of ambiguity in the test reduces its accuracy in predicting personality traits. Projective tests, on the other hand, acknowledge that different participants have different experiences. TEMAS test allows the respondents to narrate the events happening before and after the picture on the card (Costantino et al., 2020). Different respondents have different narrations, increasing the test’s ambiguity. By allowing the participants to tell a story, the test is able to collect all details that might be helpful in determining the respondents’ personality traits. This however, reduces the accuracy of the test.

Both personality tests have several legal and ethical implications when administered to children under the age of 16. One of them is the issue of confidentiality. Examiners require the children to submit their personal information when conducting the tests (Stedman et al., 2018). This information might be disclosed to third parties for the purpose of research, and this might breach their confidentiality (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2013). The examiners must protect minors’ information from unapproved access, disclosure, use, modification, or theft (Ihasn & Furnham, 2018). Ensuring confidentiality is important because this protects the minors and improves the relationship between the tester and the respondents, hence increasing the integrity of the assessment.

Another ethical consideration when conducting the personality assessment of minors is privacy. Minors have the right to be free from any kind of interference or intrusion by other people (Stedman et al., 2018). The tests might fail to protect the minors’ privacy rights regarding their personal information and the opinions and thoughts they express during the assessment. Minors taking part in the tests should be able to control the information that they give out (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2013)). The examiner should not include any information in the submission without the consent of the minor, as this will go against their privacy interests (Reynolds et al., 2021). Minors should have the power to control their personal information by deciding to consent to or withhold consent.

Both objective and projective tests might take place either physically or online. The online exam mode poses an ethical issue for human relations because minors are considered a protected population (Ihsan & Furhnam, 2018). Before conducting the assessment, the participants must sign a statement ensuring their total privacy and non-disclosure to third parties. When conducting the tests through the internet, the minors might not be able to sign the privacy and non-disclosure agreement (Camati & Enembreck, 2020). In some cases, online assessments might attract intrusion from third parties, and the minor’s information might fall into the wrong hands.

Testers should be aware of the legal implication resulting from the disclosure of the information collected from the minor. In some cases, the examiners might need to disclose the private information collected without the minor’s consent (Gogniat et al., 2020). For example, they might disclose the information to protect the minor from harm if the assessment indicates the possibility of the respondent committing a crime or being suicidal (Camati & Enembreck, 2020).

The test might also reveal cases of child abuse or neglect based on how the minor answers the questions. In this case, the examiner must report the findings, which goes against the privacy policy. Lastly, the examiner might need to release the minor’s information if they are issued with a court order in a case where the minor is facing legal proceedings (Ihsan & Furnham, 2018). To prevent this, the examiner might need to consult with the minor’s guardian before releasing the information. The examiner may disclose information collected from the assessments in all the cases above (Reynolds et al., 2021). This move goes against the ethical considerations of privacy, confidentiality, and consent and might attract a legal implication.

In conclusion, personality assessments have undergone changes in their applicability and content, since the time when they were introduced. Objective and projective tests have their advantages and disadvantages, as indicated above. TEMAS relies on ambiguity, and this is viewed as both a negative and positive feature. This test depends on the interpretation of the examiner to draw an outcome. NEO-FFI test on the other hand tries to eliminate this ambiguity, with an effort to increase its accuracy. Objective tests have a small range of responses and coded scores, allowing for the production of similar scores, hence increasing their validity and reliability. The comparison of NEO-FFI and TEMAS tests has indicated that objective tests are more accurate and reliable.

References

Camati, R. S., & Enembreck, F. (2020). Text-Based Automatic Personality Recognition: a Projective Approach. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC) (pp. 218-225). IEEE. Web.

Costantino, G., Dana, R. H., & Malgady, R. G. (2020). TEMAS (Tell-Me-A-Story) assessment in multicultural societies. (pp. 120-139). Routledge.

Gogniat, M. A., Rodriguez, V. J., Granros, M., Jean, K. R., Robinson, T. L., & Miller, L. S. (2022). Differential Item Functioning: An Examination of the NEO-FFI by Sex in Older Adults. SAGE Open, 12(1). Web.

Ihsan, Z., & Furnham, A. (2018). The new technologies in personality assessment: A review. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 70(2), 147. Web.

Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2013). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and issues (9th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Reynolds, C. R., Altmann, R. A., & Allen, D. N. (2021). Assessment of Personality. In Mastering Modern Psychological Testing (pp. 383-426). Springer, Cham. Web.

Stedman, J. M., McGeary, C. A., & Essery, J. (2018). Current patterns of training in personality assessment during internship. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 74(3), 398-406. Web.

Stedman, J. M., Essery, J., & McGeary, C. A. (2018). Projective personality assessment: Evidence for a decline in training emphasis. SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 25(1), 54-59. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

Objective vs. Projective Personality Assessments

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)