You are on page 1of 15

Psychometric Report for one Individual Using the IPIP and MSECQ

sympathetic. The scientific principles that strengthen psychometrics apply equally well to measurements in education and in clinical or occupational contexts and the early psychometricians were equally at home in all these fields (Rust and Golombok. Allport was the one who insisted the personality theorist use the idiographic of research that is the intense study of single case. 2009). He therefore retained the term common traits to describe characteristics of groups but changed the term individual trait to personal disposition (Hergenhahn. Extraverted people are talkative. and avoid the nomothetic method that studies groups of individuals and analyzes averages. extraversion is the easiest to judge in zero acquaintance. active. Extraverted people prioritize status striving. 2003). agreeableness. Trait approach mainly focuses on identifyingand judging individual personality characteristics (Hayes. Trait theories can be measured as a steady attribute that causes the individual to behave in a particular way. passionate. and willing to take risks (Kowalski & Westen. Psychometrics is the field of study concerned with theory and technique of psychological measurement which includes attitudes. 2005). sociable.Conscientiousness has many definitions one is awareness others are the trait of being painstak- .Introduction The trait approach is one of the comprehensivecharacteristics of personality which denotes that the individual personalities are self-possessed broad dispositions. Costa and McRae who are the influential advocates of this approach came up with six traits under each of the five heading. This approach had achieved broad acceptance as a common descriptive system.Agreeable people are warm. Psychometrics offers statistical techniques which Tells the researchers how good a measuring tool or a particular questionnaire is. 2009). Of the big five. which prejudicedpsychologist such as Raymond Cattell. helpful and courteous. personality traits and abilities. Hans Eysenck and Costa and McCrae. The big five which is also known by the Acronym the Ocean Framework are not personality types. cooperative. situations in which two people have only just met. Gordon Allport established the idea cardinal traits. 2007). which reflects a strong desire to obtain acceptance in personal relationships as a means of expressing personality. Later in the evolution of his theory. giving totally 30 traits. They are set of factors which describes common elements among the sub factors or traits which cluster together. 2000). conscientiousness. which reflects a strong desire to obtain power and influence within social structure as a means of expressing personality(Colquitt.Extroversion refers to a propensity to be sociable. bold and dominant. Agreeable people prioritize communion striving. Westen 2005). assertive. At first. The accomplishments of modern techniques and the number-crunching power afforded by computers provide the advanced researcher with powers of data analysis far beyond those envisioned by the revolutionary trait researchers (Mathews et al. and common traits are those shared by several individual. Allport came to believe using the term trait to describe both group and individual characteristics was confusing. Psychometric approach tries to identify groups of items in a test that correlate highly with one another in order to discover underlying skills or abilities and Psychometric instruments are tests that quantify psychological attributes such as personality traits and intellectual abilities (Kowalski. The five personality dimensions include extraversion. Gordon allport distinguished between the individual traits and common traits. neuroticism and openness to experience. Gordon allport is widely regarded as the founder of the trait approach in personality. just as they might assess the accuracy of a thermometer or balance in the physical sciences. individual traits are those influenced by a specific individual. kind.

neuroticism (negatively). Open people are curious. as assessed by internal-consistency reliability. using some of the items from IPIP. They used the substitute measurement of HEXACO factors and their aspects. A wider research has been going on since then. understand and reflectively manage our own and other's feelings"( cited in Buchanan and Huczynski.A. The results obtained from the experiment was related with synchronized self-reports of satisfaction with social relationships. and most people scoring near the average. and jealous. The psychometric they used were the Mayer. People who score low on openness are considered to be closed to experience. Eventually emotional intelligence was a significant topic in the field of Brain science around 1990 to 1993.T. In 1983 the famous psychologist Gardener came up with his theory of multiple-intelligence which had the capability to recognize and indicate emotions. Ashton and Goldberg in 2007. These associations remained statistically important even controlling for important Big Five personality traits and verbal intelligence. and the ability to manage one’s emotions. convergent and discriminant correlations with the original HEXACO-PI scales. but at that time both were separate entities where they never considered emotional intelligence as one single aspect. Approximately after two decades a psychologist named David Welsher in around 1952 introduced intelligence quotient. emotional.Neuroticism defines a continuum from emotional stability to instability. of which the . The measure chose to study personality is the IPIP questionnaire. hardworking and preserving. A study was conducted by Lee. The results showed satisfactory psychometric properties. It is closely related to the construct of negative activity. and factor structure (Lee Et Al. A study was conducted on emotional intelligence as well as the personality traits on 103 college students. and Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). They also measured the recognized value of an individual's personal relations.Openness to experience is the final dimensions of the big five. creative. International personality Item Pool is a website to progress and constantly enhance a set of personality records. Neurotic people are nervous.Conscientious people are dependable. But the universalization and augmentation of Emotional intelligence really started in 1994. 2003). In 1935 E.ing and careful. integrate.in simple words Emotional Intelligence is the ability to read people's emotions and use one's own emotional response adaptively. A psychologist called Reuven Bar-On tried to measure emotional intelligence in wellbeing in the year of 1988. 2007).Openness tends to be normally distributed with a small number of individuals scoring extremely high or low on the trait. imaginative. 2007). as assessed by the MSCEIT (Lopes Et Al. organized. 2004). and was well known after the publication of the book called Emotional Intelligence by Goleman. In around 1900 to 1969 several psychologist have mentioned and discussed about emotion and intelligence. "Emotional intelligence is the ability to identify.L.Thorndike was the first person to mention about social intelligence. Salovey. reliable. ambitious. insecure. All the individual scoring showed a positive response. 2009). complex. or the quality of acting according to the dictates of one's conscience. And researchers have come up several contributions(Marriner. mainly in the HEXACO Personality inventory which was developed by the researchers in 2004 measuring lexical studies of personality stuctures of various languages. Global satisfaction with one’s relationships was related with extraversion. moody. refined. and sophisticated (Colquitt et al.

which was divided in to 5 areas according to the big five personality traits. Refer to appendix for the questionnaire. The IPIP scales can be used for science related as well as viable determinations. And all of them are mainly based on Goleman's principles. Refer to appendix for the questionnaire. MeredithSheppard emotional competencies questionnaire mainly contains of 5 of the factors of emotional intelligence introduced by Goleman. The participants were aged between 18 and 40. Once the participants were done with the questionnaire they were asked to score as well. MSECQ . (Ravid. that is. by the researcher on the five factors of a personality. (Meredith. and a scoring sheet was provided. For the purpose of this report we are analyzing the IPIP personality profile and the MSECQ emotional competence profile of one individual. Some of their personal data were also required such as age and gender. On the other hand the measure chosen to study emotional intelligence in the MSECQ. Questionnaire was provided in order to measure their personality. MSECQ The experiment included sixty undergraduate students who voluntarily participated out of which there were two male participants. Methods IPIP Sixty psychology undergraduate students voluntarily participated in the experiment out of which two of them were male. Materials IPIP The material used to measure personality was the International personality item pool questionnaire which included 100 questions. Once they were scored the participants handed back the scoring sheet as well as the completed questionnaire. The questionnaire contained hundred questions.R. Which were categorized in to negative and positive sides. 2005) MSECQ The material used is a questionnaire to measure the emotional intelligence of the participants which included 80 questions.subjects are in the public domain. Extraversion. Conscientiousness. Emotional intelligence was the main component which was measured with the help of a questionnaire. Openness to Experience and Neuroticism. Agreeableness. 2007) Procedure IPIP Participant was asked to fill out a questionnaire.

The questionnaire contained some of the personal data such as the age and the gender of the participant.Akin procedure was followed in Emotional assessment as well. Z= X-Mean/Standard Deviation With the help of the Z score the T score was formulated : T= (Z score * 10) + 50 RESULTS IPIP Sample Statistics IPIP FACTORS Extraversion Agreeableness Raw score Mean 53 78 69. A scoring sheet was also provided following the questionnaire.4 50. Seventy questions were asked.116 77.002 36. Expressivity. The mean values and the formulas for calculating the z and t scores are provided in the scoring. Each of the factors was divided into negative and positive signs. which were filled out by the participant within half an hour. Drive and lastly Foundations. The researcher briefed the participants about the experiment and the participant was asked fill up a consent form as well.638 -1. The researcher asked the participants to fill out a questionnaire related to emotional intelligence. Z= X-Mean/Standard Deviation With the help of the Z score the T score was formulated T= (Z score * 10) + 50 MSECQ The same procedure was followed. which contained five factors such as Self Insight. Sensitivity.36 0. and with the help of these and the raw scores the Z score was formulated with the following equation.967 (n= 60 ) SD 11.859 12.02 Z score T score . Scoring IPIP The mean and the standard deviation were given to the participants. with the help of mean and standard deviation the Z score was formulated.

.721 11. The Z score was multiplied by 10 and then the result was added to 50.954 7.4 37.388 7. in extraversion which shows that she is.946 15. the standard deviation and raw score of the participant.160.483 71.6 after the calculation of Z score and t score.632 8. where it can be interpreted that she is a fairly agreeable person.8 74.. The client has scored lowest.62 SD 5. And the client received her highest score for conscientiousness.05 72. 881.716 76. The client received a score of 50. Neuroticism was fairly high for the client.4.6 which is only slightly from neuroticism. 88144 8.360 0.45 67. where she acknowledged a score of 55..1 8111.54 -1. where it could be concluded that she is a very anxious and nervous person.56 0. the mean and standard deviation of the whole group and the calculated Z and T score.Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness to Experience 74 68 61 67.101 -. Sample mean was deducted from the raw score and then was divided by the standard deviation. that is 36. 32148 80108 Z score T score Table 2 mainly indicates the raw score of the client. Her second lowest score was obtained from openness to experience by scoring 37. the standard deviation.4. Sample Statistics MSECQ DOMAINS Raw score ) n= 359( Mean Self-Insight Expressivity Sensitivity Drive Foundations TOTAL Emotional Competency 69 62 66 67 75 66.12 69. where obtained a score of 55.427 12.02 on agreeableness.300 11. The Z score was formulated with the help of the mean.6 55. the Mean value of the sample.0 -.24 55.9 80.6 Table 1 shows the raw score of the client.300 59. if not completely but still an introvert. -21221 21248 21.1.952 11.481 -216. the Z score and the t score. whereas the T score was converted after the calculation of Z score.

She is really sympathetic towards other people's problems and is really keen to help when needed to be.1 and 50. and prefers silence and loneliness to noise. The client confirms that she has most of her characteristics as an introvert than an extrovert. The results were obtained from that. The client received a score of 43.23. She likes to be independent rather than trail behind someone.83 for Drive and foundation respectively. the client's total emotional competency was only average.She gets angry and anxious very fast at times. She scored an average on agreeableness which refers to that she is an agreeable person to some extent. And the same thing can be said about Malavika as well. The average score obtained from emotional competence came up to 42. And also she likes to keep everything to herself rather than share everything with a second person. And it can be concluded that.88 regarding self-insight and a 37. and she likes everything up-to-date. scored her lowest in the extraversion which could be concluded that she is an introverted person. On the other hand the T score was calculated with the by multiplying 10 to the Z score and adding it with 50. Discussion Malavika Chelat. The highest score she received was for 49. She prefers reading a book alone than attend a party.79. she has got strong will power and proper order for each and every single thing. She is comparatively less on mingling with people and socializing. The lowest score she received was for sensitivity that is 33. Malavika approves about what the researcher concluded about her trait in conscientiousness. But when she gets to know people she starts mingling with them. It's mainly said that the people who score high in conscientiousness could be said as reliable persons. Malavika scored her highest in conscientiousness.The Z score was articulated with the help of the raw score. Neuroticism score of Malavika was closer to her score of conscientiousness. The mean score was subtracted from the raw score of the participant and then was divided with standard deviation. Malavika confirms that she agree to people when she thinks they are right. the client. the mean and the standard deviation. Malavika confirms that she is nervous when she needs to present something's in front of everyone.1 for expressivity. She is cooperative too when required. she likes cleanliness. She confirms that she tends to be angry at times. And she also says that she loves to help people who are needy. . And also gets anxious even when small things changes from here to there. She confirms that she doesn't mingle with people more often like her friends do. She also says that until and unless she has made up her mind she won't do anything properly. And also she is shy around people.

less self-insight where we can contemplate that she has a problem while figuring out her own emotions. Malavika Chelat's scores were fair enough for the personality factors. But again she disagrees about the result where the researcher points out that she doesn't have independence of judgment. and has problem dealing with her emotions which can be expressed in an inappropriate manner and taken completely in a different sense by the person dealing with her. Malavika might also stuff all these emotions and hide everything inside without letting anyone know about her feeling which may later on cause her health related issues. And it may cause her trouble while dealing with emotional situation. And the researcher also thinks that she is not inquisitive about the world and does not have independence on their judgment. which is more likely to create problems for her to cope with strong feelings and emotions. But still her weighing scale tend to be showing more of. especially strong as well as undesirable feelings. She might find it understand other people's emotions from their point of view. Malavika almost agrees with everything predicted by the researcher. But she does agree to the result where the researcher says that she is insensitive and is not inquisitive to the world. Malavika certainly agrees with the results obtained by the researcher because. which may lead them to show her emotions out and the person with high expressivity feel that she is mean and unsympathetic towards the person. But in contrast the client is not satisfied with the results obtained by the researcher. Client received a lesser score compared to self-insight than expressivity. where she'll either be too separate or easily confounded which will lead her to be in more emotional turmoil. She accepts the fact the at times she doesn't understand her feelings. According to the researcher Malavika has trouble understanding and dealing with other people's emotions. she does not like to express her feeling good or bad to anyone other than who are close to her. Malavika has scored an average taking self-insight into consideration.The last score she received on openness to experience showed a score much lower score than the entire three factors such as agreeableness. where she does respect her decisions. whereas Malavika might be just being honest and highly sensitive. And also concludes that since it is difficult understanding other people's emotions they may have an outburst on the spot itself. And eventually from time to time she does have emotional outburst which results in mainly angriness or deep hatred for the person who had caused it. According to the researcher Malavika is more if insensitive person and does not have active imagination. Participant completely and strongly disagrees to the results implemented by the researcher and expresses that she do understand other people's emotions and do not have any problem from . The researcher even expressed that the client might find people who have high expressivity very less tolerant. She disagrees on the fact that she does not have active imagination. neuroticism. and conscientiousness. And the researcher came up to an understanding that Malavika might be having problems while expressing her feeling to a second person. Malavika received her lowest score compared to all the other in sensitivity. And to top it off she may as well suffer from selfesteem. ahead is the explanation of the result obtained from her emotional intelligence scores. while she has so many ambitions.

psychometrics is a good way of measuring personality and emotional intelligence. She is also able to know about her weakness compared to others. The client agreed to the results drawn by the researcher. In terms of personality it could be said that Malavika is more of an introverted persons who has feeling for other and like to deal with her own things in her own way. agreeableness and openness to experiment. May be . Conclusion As a researcher. She also assured the researcher that she always wanted to be independent. the researcher suggests that she has good understanding of her own principles and which helps her to handle herself and her relationships in a proper manner. because they were absolutely correct according to Malavika. And she is really goal oriented and wants to accomplish her goal with her own will power.seeing from another person's viewpoint. but it does have so many flaws to it. The first reason can be said that may be the client has lied in the questionnaires. Malavika got her highest scores regarding emotional intelligence in foundations. It can be explained and proved that the client confirms that she does have great ambitions. When the average was calculated from the above emotional intelligence from the above factors the results showed were really average and the researcher recommended that Malavika is on the way to an emotionally intelligent. Being a psychology student. The client somewhat agreed to what the researcher indicated about her foundations. as well as the client. whereas in terms of emotional intelligence it could be said that she is a very sensitive person who had great ambitions. but she does say that at times can't come to a conclusion about what is weaknesses and if she could cope with all the failures and problems in relationships. where the researcher stated that she does not have active imagination and the client opposed strongly. The main factor which she opposed under personality was the openness to experience. And she also claimed that she tries her maximum to understand other person's feelings as well. It did help me to understand the participant in detail.She was not satisfied and agreeable to some of the results obtained by the researcher. conscientiousness. Malavika was also not happy about the score which was attained by the researcher for the factor of sensitivity in emotional intelligence. She did oppose some of the factors and the results attained from the factors as it was just the opposite of what her personality or emotional attitude was. which include doing her masters in one of the top ten universities in London. neuroticism. and just the personality trait she likes to maintain things in her own manner. Malavika obtained a comparatively higher score. where the client claims that she does understands other people's emotions. expressivity. And she specifically likes to do stuff on her own independently. Malavika was aware of the entire factors of personality discussed above in the following experiment such as extraversion. and sensitivity. where the researcher described Malavika as a highly motivated person who likes to achieve her goal in a disciplined way. Even though Malavika received a fairly good result she has to improve in the field of self-insight.

but not completely. and the results from the experiment showed that I should improve in my emotional back ground which I totally agree. It both shows just the opposite of what I am. The client does points out where her results do not go hand in hand with her personality or emotional competencies. And I am sure that the knowledge myself which I received with the help of this report wouldn't go wasted when I enter the world of competition where I have to be independent.they dint understand the questions asked in the questionnaire in the first place. As a client I was happy with the whole report. . As a matter of fact other than sensitivity whatever the report said about my emotional intelligence was accurate and preferably helpful for me. In some sections of results especially the sensitivity part from emotional intelligence and openness to experience from personality does not support what I am. I do understand myself more.

S.Salovey. Great Britian.R (2007). Wesson. New York U. UK.A Hergenhahn.M.N.M. 2nd edition.A. Cambridge University Press.A (2004). McGraw Hill Education. U. Prentice Hall.T.J.D. Mosby. Strans.S (2009). June 2007. 3rd edition.L. Lee. Vol. Personality and Individual Difference. Golombok. Lepine.S.Volume 42(8).C.R. Matthews. Italy.R(2003).A.M. Whiteman.D(2005) Psychology 4th edition.U.J (2009) Organizational behavior : improvingperformance and commitment in the workplace.         Rust.Pearsonedications. U.A. The IPIP–HEXACO scales: An alternative. Westen. Olson.A. Lopes. Guide to Nursing management and leadership.H(2007) An introduction to theories of personality.J.P.I. Modern Psychometrics: The science of Psychological Assessment.641-658 Ashton.A.J.P.M. Goldberg.B. Personality and Individual Differences.N (2000) Foundations of Psychology.35. 7th edition.R.S. London.S.J. Kowalski. Huczynski.G.A. Emotional Intelligence.6th edition.A (2007) Organizational Behaviour .A.K. 7thedition. Hayes. Marriner. Psychology Press. Buchanan. Thomson Learning. Pages 1515-1526. public-domain measure of the personality constructs in the HEXACO model.  . pp. Deary.C (2003) Personality Traits. personality and the perceived quality of social relationships.REFERNCE LIST  Colquitt.

APPENDIX .

Do you rely on your feelings when making decisions Hardly ever. Sometimes. Often or Almost Always? .STANDARDISED INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE MSECQ     You are assessing in the development of a new emotional competencies scale by this questionnaire. Seldom.for example. With first statement. To help categories responses could you please circle which of the following options applies to you: Male / Female 16-25 / 26-35 / 36-45 / 46-55 / 56-65 The MSECQ comprises a list of statements numbered 1 to 70 Please read each statement and put a cross in the box under the response that best suits you.

your responses will be kept in confidence. Please use the rating scale to describe how accurately each statements describes you. Describe yourself as you honestly see yourself. .THE STANDARDISED INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE IPIP       Contained in the IPIP there are phrases describing people's behaviors. not as you wish to be in future. Please read each statement carefully and put a cross in the box under the option that correspondes to yourself. So that you can describe yourself in an honest manner . in relation to other people you know of the same sex as yoyu are and roughly your same age. Describe yourself as you generally are now.