1. A BRIEF ORIENTATION TO THE 16PF TEST The Sixteen Personality Factor Ques: tionnaire (16PF) is an objectively scorable test devised by basic research in psychol- ‘ogy to give the most complete coverage of personality possible in a brief time. The test was designed for use with individuals aged 16 and above. Forms A, B,C, and D, which are the subject of this manual, are most appropriate for individuals whose educational level is roughly equivalent to that of the normal high school student. Form E is designed for individuals with marked educational and/or reading defi- cits. A separate manual for the 16PF, Form E, is available through IPAT. ‘The 16PF can be scored by hand or by computer, and various types of answer sheets are available for this reason. Addi- tionally, extensive computer interpreta: tion services described in Section 6 of this Manual are available through IPAT. A more intensive description of the sci- entific and statistical properties of the test is given in the Handbook for the 16PF.* The present Manual is a brief, practical guide, handy for those actually giving and scoring the test, Comprehensive coverage of personal- ity rests upon measurement of 16 func- tionally independent and psychologically meaningful dimensions isolated and rep- licated in more than 40 years of factor- analytic research on normal and clinical groups, Test users may need a little prac- tice to get used to handling as many as 16 traits, but the expanded possibilities for understanding and predicting behavior will more than compensate for the effort involved. ‘The personality factors measured by the 16PF are not just unique to the test, but, instead, rest within the context of a general theory of personality. Nearly 10 years of empirical, factor-analytic re- search preceded the first commercial pub- lication of the test in 1949. Since this time, five major revisions of items and many additional improvements, such as supple- mentary validity scales, have been incor- porated into the 16PF. For convenience, these dimensions are set out briefly below in Table 1.1, Each factor is listed with its alphabetic designa- tion and brief descriptions of low and high scores. A more detailed description of each scale is given in Section 7 of this Manual and in Chapter 9 of the Handbook. ‘These 16 dimensions or scales are es- sentially independent. Any itemin the test contributes to the score on one and only one factor so that no dependencies were introduced at the level of scale construc- tion. Moreover, the experimentally ob- tained correlations among the 16 scales {Jt is difficult in a manual of this size to fully document all of the research findings that are briefly reported here. Additional documentation can be found ir. the Handbook, Similarly, a number of important issues are not discussed in this Manual but are treated in the Handbook. These include: (1) the design of the test in relation rewearch evidence; (2) formulas and devices for using scores for educational and industrial prediction and linieal diagnosis, (3) fuller discussion of the meanings of irst- and second-order factors; and (4) a comprehensive ‘inmary of research findings with the test in the areas of industrial, educational, |, and clinical psychology,TABLE 1A ‘TRAITS COVERED BY THE 10PF TEST 5 PI URC THE PRIMARY 8! kstnecire Lowsten Boore Deseription Feotor Description ‘s10) ae. Warm, outgoing, kindly, eusywoknie, Geni reserved impersonal, detached, Ha ngs people She PORN, Pee, Affectothymin sa st ‘hing, lone intelligent “Abstract thinking, Be eee ee Denice bok oat TET Higher scholastic mentabenpcity Affected fel lonally Fimotionally table, mature,faconreality, > feelings, emottonally lens i Hea Hato a oirength Lower egostrength Higher no : Sub nlty tea Dominan!, ussertive, aggressive, eS eT ee stubborn, competitive, bossy 1) raSaataateron Dominance as Sober, restrain wd Enthusiastic, spontaneous, heedless, tacit expressive, cheerful F taciturn, serious Desurgency Conscientious, conforming, moralistic, staid, rule-bound © selfindulgent ‘Weaker superogo strength ako srsnstb ail Shy, threat-sensitive, tii pore] patblbtced: HH hesitant,intimidated can take stress Threctia tbh) NO Wea a Tough-minded, self-reliant, no-nonsense, Tender-minded, sensitive, overprotected, 1 rough, realistic intuitive,refined Harna Promsia Trusting, accepting conditions, ‘Suspicious, hard to fool L_ easy togetonwith distrustful, skeptical Alaxia Protension, Practical, concerned with “down-to-earth” Imaginative, absent-minded, absorbedin M issues, steady thought, impractical Praxernia Aut Forthright, unpretentious, open, Shred. polished, socially aw ee y aware, N genuine, artless diplomatic, calculating Artlessness Er Shrewdness Selfassured, secure, feels ree of guilt, " Apprehensiv plan Pe © untroubled, self-satisfied Tere ser tuaans Lan, Sale tonal ‘ Untroubled adequacy Guilt pronenes: Conservative, respecting traditional Experimenting, liberal, critical s open to, i Sova nieatiatacn| ne Group-oriented, aJoiner” and sound ‘Self sufficient, resource follower listenstoothor oe _____ Group adherence Self-sufficiency Undisciplined selfconflict, lax, Followin preci & _caretessofsocia rues Following el:image, socially precise, ira ein High self-concept control telaxed, tranquil, composed, Tense oh heer ‘ense. frustrated, overwrought, een ee oumed has high driveare generally quite small so that each scale provides some new piece of information about the person being tested. In addition to the 16 primary factors the test can be used as a measure of at least five secondary dimensions which are broader traits, scorable from the compo- nent primary factors in ways described in Section 8. Of course, psychologists must deter- mine for themselves the applicability of any instrument to the solution of problems that they face. In evaluating the 16PF, the essential elements professionals will wish to consider are 1) that the test is embedded within the broader fabric or network of general psychological theory; 2) that in its present form the test rests upon an empirical foundation of more than 36 factor-analytic in- vestigations dealing with the 16PF primaries and at least 100 more analyses in which verification of the instrument structure occurred as a by-product of the main research thrust +) that the psychometric properties of the scales ve. reliabilities, val- ities, ete ) have been explored and reported for a variety of samples and conditions; and 4) that research findings involving the test (reported in numerous books and articles) provide the test user with a rich base of criterion evi- dence in industrial, clinical, social, and educational psychology. Some of these issues are treated briefly in this Manual. More comprehensive dis- Cussiuns of these and other important is- sues will be found in the Handbook, in Cattell (1973), and in Cattell and Krug (1986). It is hoped that test users will con- sult these additional sources so that the decision to use the test in a particular situ- ation will be based upon an informed, in- dividual evaluation of the evidence pre- sented. If, at first glance, this seems an unreasonable demand upon test users, they are reminded that this is one of the main reasons why psychological tests are restricted in use to qualified professionals. No test can be applied uncritically to the wide variety of behavioral experiences that have intrigued psychologists over the years. ‘The general theory of personality from which the 16PF was developed, however, anticipated their demands along certain major dimensions. Thus, for example, re- lated scales are available to measure pri- mary source traits below the adult age range for which the 16PF is intended. Special-purpose tests have been devised to measure only one secondary trait, such as anxiety or extraversion, when the psychologist wishes to focus and intensify his measurement in this fashion. Simi- larly, the Clinical Analysis Questionnaire was developed to augment the power of the 16PF in clinical usage by adding 12 scales, substantially pathological in na- ture, to the 16 normal scales. Translations of the 16PF into more than 40 languages and adaptations for five other English- speaking cultures are also available to facilitate international comparisons. With this brief statement of design and purpose asa background, the test user can proceed to the remaining sections of this Manual that deal directly with adminis- tration, scoring, and interpretation of test results.2. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE TEST Arrangement of Questions. Ten to 13 items are provided for each scale in Form A and Form B. In Form C and Form D, there are eight items for the Factor B scale, seven items for the motivational dis- tortion scale, and six items for each of the remaining scales, The questions are arranged in a roughly cyclic order deter- mined bya plan to give maximum conveni- ence in handscoring situations and to insure variety and interest for the examinee. Method of Answering. Three-alterna- tive answers are provided for each of the questions, since the two-alternative “forced-choice” situation, forbidding any “middle-of-the-road” compromise, tends to force a distorted distribution and may pro- duce aversion to the test on the part of the examinee. This is particularly the case with adults of average or higher intelli- gence for whom Forms A, B, C, and D are designed. With children, or with less intel- ligent, less competent, or culturally de- prived adults, a two-choice design appears better, and such a design is used in the “low-literate” scales of the 16PF con- structed for use with such populations (Form E), Avoidance of Motivational Distortion Effects. Questionnaires are often, Justifi- ably, considered susceptible to distortion and deliberate faking. Test construction is aimed to minimize this; but it is also the responsibility of the examiner to neu- tralize such tendencies as far as possible. It is important to develop good rapport, and to let clients see that the test can best contribute to theirown benefit ifthey. Coop- erate with frank reports. Actually, items have been chosen to be as “neutral” in value as possible, to emphasize both desir- able and undesirable aspects at both ends of each factor scale. Furthermore, items which are not “face valid,” ie., which do not obviously refer to the trait but which correlationally are known to measure it, have been chosen wherever possible, as a “built-in” protection against distortion. In any case, this questionnaire problem is probably not so serious as its frequent dis- cussion might seem to indicate, since the psychologist or counselor is most likely to use the test in those situations where clients fully realize that accurate results will contribute to their own welfare. If time is taken to make sure that the people tested understand the importance of care- ful and truthful response, a long step to- ward achieving good measures has been taken. Identifying Distortion with the 16PF, Additional safeguards have been built into Forms A, C, and Dofthe 16PF. At the pres. ent time, three supplementary validity scales for Form A, 1968 Edition, of the 16PF have been developed and sufficiently well established to be of clear benefit in identifying the most common distortion Patterns among clients. The three scales are Motivational Distortion (or “Faking Good”), “Faking Bad,” and Random re sponses. The nature of the “Faking Good” and “Faking Bad” scales of the 16PF, Form A, are discussed fully in A Guide to the Clin, ‘cal Use of the I6PF (Karson & O'Dell, 1976). Basically, faking good refers to anttempt on the part of the x Bott thereat wor os seuyetaees ble as possible, Faking bad implies the op. posite tendency. These two scales have been fully normed and are included as a part of the interpretive reports that are available from the IPAT Test Services D: vision. For individuals using the hand: scoring answer sheet for Form A, IPAT has also developed a special handscoring stencil that includes the norms and appro. priate profile correction patterns to be applied when distortion is evident, Com- plete information on the norms and correc- tions for distortion may be found in “Further Evidence-on 16PF Distortion Scales,” by Krug, Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 42, No. 5, pp. 513-518. The Random Scale, which is slightly more difficult to score, consists of a series of items that were infrequently chosen in response to the standard 16PF, Form A, questions. A complete description of the items comprising the scale and the re- search involved in their selection is reported in the Karson and O'Dell book mentioned above. In addition to using this Random scale, obvious response pattern- ing or sabotage can often be detected by simply examining each answer sheet prior to scoring. Forms C and D of the 16PF, which are frequently used in occupational selection work, contain a single motivational distor- tion (MD) scale. The nature of this scale and its applications are discussed fully in the Handbook for the 16PF and in Tabular Supplement #2 to the 16PF Handbook, which contains the norms for Forms C and D. Intended Applications of the Various Forms. The primary difference between Forms A and B, on the one hand, and Forms C and D, on the other, is in their length and, therefore, the ume required for administration, Form A or Form B will generally require about 45-60 minutes cach for administration, while Form C or Form D require only about 25-35 minutes each. However, in research situations and in all cases where maximum precision is needed, it is suggested that, wherever pos- sible, at least two forms be used (e.g., A + Bor C + D). On the other hand, where time is limited, modern psychometric un- derstanding clearly supports the use of a single form that measures,all 16 factors, rather than expenditure of the same total available time in longer and more valid measures of only a few factors. From our experience, when time allows only one form of the 16PF to be utilized, the most frequently selected form is Form A. Beyond the time differences, the read- ing level required for completing the various forms is the only other important difference. The reading level of Forms A and B is approximately 7-8th grade, while Forms C and D require reading ability of only 6-7th grade. Clearly, this difference is not great and leads the test adminis- trator to place a greater emphasis on ob- taining more information about the indi- vidual by use of the longer versions of the 16PF test booklets (Form A or B). When the test administrator feels that a sub- stantial reading problem may exist for the client, Form E of the 16PF should be con- sidered. This form was designed for per- sons with reading levels between 3rd and 4th grades. Form E also employs a special two-choice response format and should be used only in situations where the lower abilities of the client preclude another fdrm of the instrument— >4. PRINCIPLE can be either computer written Stencils. A more detailed discussion °° computer scoring and interpretation serv jees for the test may be found in Section 6 of this Manual. Regardless of which method is used, each answer sheet should be checked to make sure that there are no odd, unscorable responses, @.g-, marking two out of three alternatives, making in- complete erasures, or entirely omitting @ response to an item. If such misunder- standing of instructions has occurred, the examinee must go back and do the affected items correctly.* Each answer scores 0, 1, or 2 points, except the Factor B (conceptual ability) answers, which score 0 (incorrect) or 1 (correct). The score of each item contributes to only one factor total. Handscoring the 16PF. A complete set of scoring materials for the 16PF hand- scorable answer sheet consists of a set of scoring keys, norm tables for the appro- priate test form(s), and a profile sheet for each answer sheet to be scored. In addi- tion, use of a special worksheet for cal- culating second-order factors and selected criterion scores is strongly recommended. Adiscussion of the use of this special work- sheet and the scores obtained can be found in Section 8 of this Manual “If this is quite impossible, and the answer sheet must be scored, a ful S AND MEC! HANICS OF SCORING instructions for obtaining Se ae the 16PF are provided or He eeominakeye, Hachiohitwo stencil keys half the 16 primary scales. Depend. S00 which form is used, the availability eindistortion scales will be discussed on one of the keys. Scoring begins by fitting and aligning the first stencil key over the answer sheet and counting the marks vis. ible through the holes for Factor A. allow ing eithers2 un faa indicated by, the amber adjacent to the hole, Sum these scores, and enter the total in the space indicated by the arrow on the stencil for Factor A (raw score); but note that Factor B (intelligence) is peculiar in that each correct mark visible in a hole gives a score of L only. Continue scoring each factor on each scoring key until all raw scores have been entered in the column on the extreme right-hand side of the answer sheet. If you are using Form A, the third stencil key in the set is used to score the motivational distortion scales discussed in Section 2. The raw scores are now ready to be converted to standard scores (sten scores) and the results profiled for easier review and interpretation. Section 5 discusses the sten scores, and profiling activities and capsule descriptions of the 16 primary per- sonality factors are presented in Section 7. Careful selection of the most appro- priate norm reference group (general Population, undergraduate college stu- Il scale score may be estimated for an iy y in that scale that -have been correctly answered: ( scale (6-13, as appropriate’: (3) dividing this result inswer to the nearest whole number. affected scale by (1) obtaining the score from the items multiplying that score by the total number of items in the by the number of items answered; and (4) rounding the ai 18dents, or high school students) is required For a full discussion of the norm tables and destin of the standardization, please fuler to Section 6. Second-order and assorted criterion- related seores may be obtained from the 16PF primary scales. A sample second- order worksheet along with a discussion of its use and the eight most frequently cited broad influence scores is presented in Section 8 of this Manual. CONVERTING RAW SCORES TO STEN SCORES Design of the Norm Tables General. The mening of raw scores from any form or combination of forms of the 16PF depends, of course, upon the particu- Jar forms used. Consequently, before these raw scores can be evaluated and inter- preted, they must be converted into a sys- tem that places the examinee’s score in relation to scores obtained by other people insome defined population (normal adults, college students, adult males only, etc.). The standardization tables convert raw scores to what are called stens, a practice consistent with best modern usage, aiming at a good, but not unrealistically refined degree of'accuracy in expression of results. Standard Scores. Sten scores (the term cumes from “standard ten”) are distributed over 10 equal-interval standard score points (assuming normal distribution) from 1 through 10. The population average (or mean) for a sten distribution is fixed at 5.5 and the standard deviation is 2.0 Sten scores. The exact limits of stens 5 and 6 (4.5 - 6.5) extend, respectively, a half Standard deviation below and above the mean, constituting the solid center of the population, while the outer limits for stens ! and 10 are 2% standard deviations below and above the mean. One would normally consider sten scores of 4 through 7 to be average, since they fall within one stan- 19 dard deviation of the population mean and therefore represent approximately two- thirds of all the obtained scores. Sten scores of 1, 2, 3, and 8, 9, 10 are generally considered to be of greater importance for profile interpretation since they are more extreme and occur far less frequently in a normal population. Validity Scales. The fact that virtually all individuals bring with them certain test-taking attitudes or concepts to a test- ing situation is well established. As discussed in Section 2 of this Manual, dis- tortion scales have been developed and standardized for the 16PF. Before pro- ceeding to the conversion of the raw scores, it is necessary to determine if the scores for the distortion scales indicate the pres- ence of any significant distortion. Norma- tive information for the distortion scales and suggested corrections are provided in the norm tables for the 16PF. The sten scorgs for the distortion scales should be recorded on the 16PF profile sheet along with any appropriate corrections to be applied to the primary factor (A through Q,) sten scores. Having completed this procedure, the psychologist may proceed to select the relevant norm table(s) for the 16PF.he Profilii PF Sten Scores: Intl eae erect raw scores fe a scores by hand, the psychologist haat it convenient to use the 16PF prof ties to record all the relevant ST ea . When all scores have been conve! Ail stens, the psychologist will find it sett tocreate a graphic, called & profile. Sat 4 mark the appropriate sten score for ea onthe 16PF profile grid and connect pasa with a eves of short straight lines. This profile presentation of 16PF data is considered by most to be extremely helpful in interpreting the scores. Norm Tables. The available selection of norm tables permits the conversion of any given raw score {as obtained from the ap- plication of the scoring key) for any of the 16 personality factors to stens. The tables cover the general adult population and various subsamples, with various tables for individual forms and for frequently en- countered combinations of forms. Since users like to make their comparisons against relatively specific reference , as well as against the general population, IPAT hes provided norm ta- bles in three groups: 1. high school stuaents (juniors and seniors), 2. university and college under- graduate students, 3. general adult population. ion of the most appropriate norm group is usually based on the age of the specific ee it membership in the Fe mana esansinar should ssn mao Slate in thal moni Witla see ne F in each group, tables are le for men, women, and for men together. Other special group, s it becomes desirable ang do so. Thus, a large number of ‘available, and it is accorq. to select the proper one i e, according to the logical vit nological definition of the use to i il] be put. h the scores will vlan order not to encumber this Manual blished sepa. ly, norm tables are pul barra tabular supplements to the 16PF “(Supplement No. 1 contains ete roe ‘A and B. Norms for Forms C and D are given in Supplement No. 2) sizes of samples, the means and standard deviations of raw scores, and the appropriate titles are given in each table ‘The values within each table (i.e., in the body of the table) are “raw scores’—the values obtained with the scoring stencils. To convert these raw scores into standard ten-point scores, i.e., stens, one finds the raw score for Factor A in the “A” line and reads the corresponding sten score above it. One then proceeds likewise for the other factors. The procedure is quite simple and is further explained on the norm tables themselves. availabl feasible to norm tables are ingly necessary Design and Description of the Stan- dardization Sample. Test constructors realize that general adult standardiza- tions are the most difficult to obtain; but in this case, a substantial attempt was made to obtain a stratified representation of various educational levels, geographical areas, ages, and occupations as they occur in the U.S.A. (see Handbook). No cultural period trends in personality factors have yet been demonstrated to upset the pre- sent norms. The standardizations of the most recent revisions of the four forms ofthe test rest upon more than 15,000 indi vidual cases ‘So that the final tables would be prop. erly representative of the populations in dicated, sev important criteria were employed in selecting data for inclusion in the final sample. The basic data collection design em. ployed in collecting the standardization samples required sampling across 10 levels of community size (ranging in popu- lation from less than twenty-five hundred to more than a million), 10 levels of socio- economic status, geographical location, and race. For the purposes of geographical stratification, the 50 states were divided into 10 regions along divisions utilized by the U.S. Census Bureau. Data were then obtained so that the regional proportions in the final norm sample would match as closely as possible the U.S. census figures currently available. The final norm sam- ples included data from 36 states for Forms A and B and 30 states for Forms C and D. With regard to race, it would seem that at least two courses of action are open to the test constructor. On the one hand, he/ she can carry out a separate standardiza- tion for each race, properly stratifying the sample on the basis of geographical loca- tion and other variables as in the main standardization effort being described here. Alternatively, he/she can select sam- ples in such a manner that the racial pro- Portions in the final norm group are con- gruent with those reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The latter approach was taken in this standardization for several reasons. First, the publication of a larger number of tables may lead to greater dif- es in comparing one researcher's findings with those of another. Second, ad- ‘tional tables might cause greater confu- sion among practitioners in deciding which table or tables to use with a set of 1a. Third, our purpose in the standardi- ion of this test has been the develop- ment of norms for the general American population. Any attempt to prepare tables for each subpopulation that might conceiv- ably be of interest to test users could only result in an eridless proliferation of tables, as we have indicated in the Handbook. In- stead, we have presented tables that we feel will be of most general applicability. Whenever there is a serious question whether these tables would be appropriate for use with some special group, the test user should consider the development and use of local norms Stratification on the basis of sex was not considered important because sepa- rate tables have been provided for each sex. Similarly, stratification on the basis of age was not considered highly impor- tant, because age corrections were em- ployed in the generation of the final tables, as discussed below and in the Tabular Supplements. Nevertheless, an attempt was made to sample broadly across the age range, and the final norm group in- cluded individuals from 15 to 70 years old. Personality factor scores have slight age trends (not so strongly as intelligence in children, nor necessarily in one direc- tion). Researchers, and those doing very exact analyses, may wish to allow for these, in which case they should consult the full tables and discussions in the Tabu- lar Supplements. However, the majority of users will not have the time for these fine modifications, and, moreover, in most situations are more concerned with com- paring people as they stand today, not Jim Smith 10 years hence with Harry Jones when he was a boy. The norms given for the general adult population are centered upon and corrected to 30 years of age, theand high school population Se ad tie corrected to 17 years of age, and (het? population centered upon and correct 20 years of age. To repeat, age correc © ‘are sometimes of critical importance 6. COMPUTER SCORI ‘The modern psychological professional is becoming more aware of the benefits of computer scoring and interpretation serv ices supporting well-researched and de- veloped assessment tools such as the 16PF. IPAT has been providing such serv- ices for its instruments since the late 1960s. Computer scoring and interpretation of the 16PF has several important advan- tages. The most obvious is a savings in time. Computer scoring also reduces the errors common in handscoring and profil- ing test results. Additionally, 16PF computer-assisted interpretive reports provide such benefits as the calculation of second-order factor scores and numerous vocational and clinical criteria to enhance the assessment process as well as provide the test results in an easy-to-read, narra- tive-style report. At the present time, nine different in terpretive reports are available for the 16PF. A brief description of each is pro- vided below. The Personal Career Development Pro- file is a narrative-style report for use in the area of personal growth and develop- ment or career/vocational counseling. De- signed to be shared directly with the coun- selee/employee, the PCDP describes the Person's unique qualities, skills, occupa- tional themes, and life interests in a Ae and direct paragraph style, PCDPs are the ‘most versatile of the 16PF reports, igi fica put of negligible significance ,, sori use of the test, and for this reas hair extensive discussion is relegated, the Handbook and to the Tabular Supp. ments. ING AND INTERPRETATION The Marriage Counseling Report is unique among IPAT's interpretation sery. ices, since combined profiles of couple are processed to explore the strengths and problems in a mature, adult relationship The MCR is ideal for premarital counsel. ing, marriage-enrichment programs, and counseling the troubled couple. The Karson Clinical Report presents narrative in the language of the clinician. Designed for in-depth analysis of an indi- vidual’s personality dynamics, it explores clinical findings and inferences. Visual display of scores in five significant areas, primary personality traits, clinical signs and syndromes, and interpersonal, cogni- tive, and need patterns are a major feature of this interpretive report. The Human Resource Development Re- Port is designed to help individuals better understand themselves in a managerial role. Useful in the selection and develop- ment of managers, the HRDR helps pin- point a person's strengths and shows where development in specific areas will help managers meet the demands of the work Setting. This report focuses on how the individual functions in five areas crit- ical to effective management: leadershi interaction with others, decision-making abilities, initiative, and personal adjust. ment. The Narrative Scoring Report provides a complete report for each individual, i cluding descriptions of all personalitycharacteristics of significance as well as vocational and occupational comparisons of importance in counseling. The 16PF Single-Page Report is the most concise of all the individual scoring and interpretive reports for the 16PF, It consists of all raw and sten scores in plot- ted-profile form for the 16PF primaries and scores several of the most important broad-pattern personality factors. The Law Enforcement Assessment and Development Report is designed for evalu- ation of individuals seeking to become law enforcement officers. Incorporating both the normal personality range of the 16PF and clinical information from the Clinical Analysis Questionnaire, this report inde- pendently evaluates clinical concerns and five job-related personality areas and overall performance in police activities-* The Individualized Stress Manage- ment Program is.a complete assessment and training package. The computer- generated book-length report is based on an individual-differences model and uses diagnostic data from the 16PF and the Stress Evaluation Inventory to yield per- sonality and lifestyle information that forms the basis for a personalized pre- scription plan for each individual. This self-paced, self-help approach fits easily into a seminar, course, or individual con- sultation setting.* TimeLine for Personal Productivity, IPAT’s new time-management training Program, offers a fresh approach to per- sonal time-management skills. Designed for use in on-the-job settings, TimeLine values the idea that people should be in control of their own situation. The work- book format of the program is individually developed for each participant through computer analysis of the 16PF and a Skills Assessment Inventory.* When using the computer scoring and interpretation services described above, please note the following points: 1) Use only the machine-scorable an- swer sheets available from IPAT. 2) Be sure to use only soft-lead pencil for completing the answer sheet. 3) Check that all information has been included on the answer sheet (name, ‘age, sex, form, and norm group), that all questions have been completed, and that all stray marks have been erased. 4) Finally, when mailing answer sheets to IPAT for processing, please enclose your name and ad- dress, prepaid scoring certificate(s) or prepayment, and a note indicat- ing the type of interpretive report you desire. Telecommunication processing of some 16PF reports is currently available, and additional microcomputer services for the test are being developed on.a regular basis. If faster service and use of a per- sonal computer to administer the 16PF and process interpretation reports are im- portant, contact IPAT’s Software Services Coordinator for the most current informa- tion on available services. a - Fi ini more information “These three computer applications of the 16PF require specialized skills and/or training. For ‘on these Services, please contact an IPAT Test Consultant.7, INTERPRETATIO aan a ot er of individual® to various diagnostic clinical groups cant varried out actuarially, using methods dis- carted in detail in the Handbook and else- Where. Where no correlations with criterié wre known, knowledge of the psychological Aature of the factors must guide initial prediction until empirical studies can be done in a particular situation. Moreover, even where correlational, actuarial evi- dence about a certain criterion 18 avail- able, it is desirable to add psychological judgment to immediate statistical compu- tations to allow for changes of personality with learning, maturation, ete., or for an- ticipated changes in life situation. N OF THE PRI by the 16PF bi (A through Qs prac the fa‘ technical, a MARY FACTORS primary factors measureg ‘as an alphabetic designation ) and a brief title, which th. most commonly use interpretations of Each of th titioner will 0 ‘The definitions and # tors, as given below, are short, non nd, of course, less exact than ‘nsive discussions available {nthe Handbook and other 16PF source books. Furthermore, the large number of profiles given in the Handbook for well Mefined occupational and clinical groups provides the psychologist with additional Insights into the meaning and operation of the factors. the more inte! Capsule Descriptions of the 16 Primary Personality Factors FACTOR A Low Score Direction Cool, Reserved, Impersonal, Detached, Formal, Aloof People who score low (sten of 1 to3)on. Factor A tend to be stiff, cool, skeptical, and aloof. They like things rather than people, working alone, and avoiding com- promises of viewpoints. They are likely to be precise and “rigid” in their way of doing things and in their personal standards. In many occupations these are desirable traits. They may tend, at times, to be critical, obstructive, or hard, vs. 24 High Score Direction Warm, Outgoing, Kindly, Easygoing, Participating, Likes People People who score high (sten of 8 to 10) on Factor A tend to be goodnatured, easy- going, emotionally expressive, ready to co- operate, attentive to people, softhearted, kindly, adaptable. They like occupations dealing with people and socially impres- sive situations, and they readily form active groups. They are generous in personal relations, less afraid of criticism and better able to remember names of people.FACTOR B Conerete-thinking, Less Intelligent e person scoring low on Factor B js to be slow to learn and grasp, dull, ¢ given to concrete and literal interpre- This dullness may be simply a re- n of low intelligence, or it may rep- poor functioning due to psycho- vs. Abstract-thinking, More Intelligent, Bright The person who scores high on Factor B tends to be quick to grasp ideas, a fast learner, intelligent. There is some correla- tion with level of culture, and some with alertness. High scores contraindicate de- terioration of mental functions in patho- logical conditions FACTOR C Affected by Feelings, Emotionally Less Stable, Easily Annoyed The person who scores low on Factor C tends to be low in frustration tolerance for unsatisfactory conditions, changeable and plastic, evading necessary reality de- mands, neurotically fatigued, fretful, easily annoyed and emotional, active in dissatisfaction, having neurotic symptoms (phobias, sleep disturbances, psychoso- matic complaints, etc,). Low Factor C score 4s common to almost all forms of neurotic and some psychotic disorders. vs. Emotionally Stable, Mature, Faces Reality, Calm The person who scores high on Factor C tends to be emotionally mature, stable, realistic about life, unruffled, possessing ego strength, better able to maintain solid group morale. This person may be making a resigned adjustment* to unsolved emo- tional problems, “Shi linical observers have pointed out that © good C level sometimes enables a person to achieve effective adjustment despite an underlying psychotic potential. FACTOR E Submissive, Humble, Mild, Easily Led, Accommodating Individuals scoring low on Factor E tend to give way to others, to be docile, and to conform, They are often dependent, con- fessing, anxious for obsessional correct- hess. This passivity is part of-many neu- rotie syndromes, vs. Dominant, Assertive, Aggressive, Stubborn, Competitive, Bossy Individuals scoring high on Factor E are assertive, self-assured, and independ- ent-minded, They tend to be austere, a law unto themselves, hostile or extrapunitive, authoritarian (managing others), and disregarding of authority.FACTOR F Sober, Restrained, Prudent, Taciturn, Serious Low scorers on Factor F tend to be restrained, reticent, and introspective. They are sometimes dour, pessimistic, unduly deliberate, and considered smug and primly correct by observers. They tend to be sober, dependable people. Enthusiastic, Spontaneous Heedless, Expressive, Cheerful is this trait tend to be High scorers on thi heertal, active, talkative, frank, expres. 5 ve, effervescent, and carefree. They are sive ein chosen as elected leaders. They uently a sive and mercurial. may be impul FACTOR G Expedient, Disregards Rules, Self-indulgent People who score low on Factor G tend to be unsteady in purpose. They are often casual and lacking in effort for group undertakings and cultural - demands. Their freedom from group influence may lead to antisocial acts, but at times makes them more effective, while their refusal to be bound by rules causes them to have less somatic upset from stress. us. Conscientious, Conforming, Moralistic, Staid, Rule-bound People who score high on Factor G tend to be exacting in character, dominated by sense of duty, persevering, responsible, planful, “fill the unforgiving minute.” They are usually conscientious and moral- istic, and they prefer hard-working people to witty companions. The inner “categori- cal imperative” of this essential superego (in the psychoanalytic sense) should be distinguished from the superficially simi- lar “social ideal self” of Q, +.FACTOR H Shy, Threat-sensitive, Timid, Hesitant, Intimidated Individuals who score low on this trait tend to be shy, withdrawing, cautious, re- uri allflowers.” ‘They usually have infercority feelings and tend to be slow and impeded in speech and in expressing themselves. They dislike occupations with personal contacts, prefer one or two close friends to large groups, and are not given to keeping in contact with all that is going on around them Bold, Venturesome, Uninhibited, Can Take Stress Individuals who score high on Factor H are sociable, bold, ready to try new things, pontaneous, and abundant in emotional response, Their “thick-skinnedness” en- ables them to face wear and tear in dealing with people and grueling emotional situa- tions, without fatigue. However, they can be careless of detail, ignore danger signals, and consume much time talking. They tend to be “pushy” and actively interested in the opposite sex. FACTOR | Tough-minded, Self-reliant, No-nonsense, Rough, Realistic People who score low on Factor I tend to be tough, realistic, “down to earth,” in- dependent, responsible, but skeptical of subjective, cultural elaborations. They are sometimes unmoved, hard, cynical, and smug. They tend to keep a group operating on a practical and realistic “no-nonsense” basis vs. Tender-minded, Sensitive, Over- protected, Intuitive, Refined People who score high on Factor I tend to be emotionally sensitive, day-dreaming, artistically fastidious, and fanciful. They are sometimes demanding of attention and help, impatient, dependent, tempera- mental, and not very realistic. They dislike crude people and rough occupations. In a group, they often tend to slow up group performance and to upset group morale by undue fussiness.FACTOR L Trusting, Accepting Conditions, Easy to Get on with ‘The person who scores low on Factor L tends to be free of jealous tendencies, adaptable, cheerful, uncompetitive, con- cerned about others, a good team worker. ‘They are open and tolerant and usually willing to take a chance with people. N-B. This factor is not necessarily paranoia, In fact, typical Factor L value to be expected for them. us. ious, Hard to Fool, Distrustful, See site Skeptical who score high on Factor L tend to ising and doubtful. They are often involved in their own egos and are self-opinionated and interested in in. ternal, mental life. Usually they are delib- erate in their actions, unconcerned about other people, and poor team members, the data on paranoid schizophrenics are not clear as to FACTOR M Practical, Concerned with “Down to Earth” Issues, Steady Low scorers on Factor M tend to be anxious to do the right things, attentive to practical matters, and subject to the dicta- tion of what is obviously possible. They are concerned over detail, able to keep their heads in emergencies, but are sometimes unimaginative. In short, they are respon- sive to the outer, rather than the inner, world. vs. Imaginative, Absent-minded, Absorbed in Thought, Impractical High scorers on Factor M tend to be unconventional, unconcerned over every- day matters, self-motivated, imaginative- ly creative, concerned with “essentials,” often absorbed in thought, and oblivious of particular people and physical realities, ‘Their inner-directed interests sometimes lead to unrealistic situations accompanied by expressive outbursts, Their individual- ity can cause them to be rejected in group activities.FACTOR N Porthright, Unpretentious, Open. Genuine, Artless Individuals who score low on Factor N have a lot of natural warmth and a genu- ine liking for people. They are uncompli- cated, sentimental, and unvarnished in their approach to people. Shrewd, Polished, Socially Aware, Diplomatic, Calculating Individuals who score high on Factor N tend to be polished, experienced, and shrewd. Their approach to people and problems is usually perceptive, hard- headed, and efficient—an unsentimental approach to situations, an approsch akin to cynicism. FACTOR O Self-aseured, Secure, Feels Free of Guilt, Untroubled, Self-satisfied Persons with low scores on Factor 0 tend to be unruffied and to have unshak- able nerve. They have a mature, unanx- ious confidence in themselves and their capacity to deal with things. They can, ‘however, be secure to the point of being in- sensitive to the feedback of others. Apprehensive, Self-blaming, Guilt-prone, Insecure, Worrying Persons with high scores on Factor O have a strong sense of obligation and high expectations of themselves. They tend to worry and feel anxious and guilt-stricken over difficulties. Often they do not feel accepted in groups or free to participate. High Factor O score is very common in clinical groups of all types (see Handbook).FACTOR Q: ng Traditional Conservative, Respect ition Iden: Low scorers on Factor Q, are confident Jin what they have been taught kth ‘and neoept the “tried and true," even when something else might be better They are cautious and compromising in regard to new ideas. Thus, they tend to oppose and postpone change, ate inclined to go along with tradition, are more conservative in religion and polities, and tend not to be interested in analytical “intellectual” thought i i yeraal, Crit xperimenting, Lib i me Open to Change High scorers on Factor Q, tend 1 interested in intellectual matters and pave doubts on fundamental issues, Thy are skeptical and inquiring: rewiring ideas, either old or new Usually they ir Linformed. less inclined 15 more ize, more inclined to expertts generally, and more (ulersnt jence and change FACTOR Q, Group-oriented, A“Joiner” and Sound Follower, Listens to Others Individuals who score low on Factor Q,, prefer to work and make decisions with other people and like and depend on social approval and admiration. They tend to go along with the group and may be lacking in individual resolution. They are not neces- sarily gregarious by choice; rather they might need group support. Self-sufficient, Resourceful. Prefer Own Decisions Individuals who score high on Factor Q, are temperamentally independent, accustomed to going their own way, mak- ing decisions and taking action on their own, They discount public opinion, but are not necessarily dominant in their relations with others (see Factor E); in fact, they could be hesitant to ask others for help. They do not dislike people, but simply do not need their agreement or supportFACTOR Q, Undisciplined Self-conflict, Lax, Careless of Social Rules People who score low on Factor Q, will not be bothered with will control and have little regard for social demands. They are impetuous and not overly considerate, careful, or painstaking. They may feel maladjusted, and many maladjustments (especially the affective, but not the para- noid) show Q,— us. Following Self-image, Socially Precise, Compulsive People who score high on Factor Qs tend to have strong control of their emo- tions and general behavior, are inclined to be socially aware and careful, and evi- dence what is commonly termed “self- respect” and high regard for social reputa- tion, They sometimes tend, however, to be perfectionistic and obstinate. Effective leaders, and some paranoids, are high on Qs. FACTOR Q, Relaxed, Tranquil, Composed, Has Low Drive, Unfrustrated Individuals who score low on Factor Qy tend to be sedate, relaxed, composed, and satisfied (not frustrated). In some situa- tions, their oversatisfaction can lead to laziness and low performance, in the sense that low motivation produces little trial and error. vs. Tense, Frustrated, Overwrought, Has High Drive Individuals who score high on Factor Q tend to be tense, restless, fretful, im- patient, and hard driving. They are often fatigued, but unable to remain inactive. ‘Their frustration represents an excess of stimulated, but undischarged, drive. Ex- tremely high tension level may disrupt school and work performance.