KATHLEEN MAI D.

FRANCISCO
3PSYCH2

EVALUATION OF PERSONALITY AND INTEREST TESTS

Objective Construct/ Purpose Approach in test Response format Score scale Age Assets Limitations
Test proponent construction range

MMPI 2 “The Minnesota “The Minnesota “Stuart Hathaway  Self- The scores 18 years “The MMPI-2 “Negative features of
Multiphasic Multiphasic and Charley report will then be and older has many the new test, such as
Personality Personality McKinley using  567 converted (Simply positive features problems with the
Inventory Inventory (MMPI) visitors of patients items 60 into what are Psycholo such as updated compatibility of code
(MMPI) was is the most widely at the University to 90 called gy, items, new types and the
developed in 1937 used and researched of Minnesota minutes normalized 2024). norms, representativeness of
by clinical clinical assessment hospital as a base to T scores, additional the norm group
psychologist tool utilized by sample in both complete ranging from validity scales, (Duckworth, 1991)”.
Starke R. mental health theorizing (Simply 30-120. The and additional
Hathaway and professionals to constructs of Psycholo normal range clinical scales
neuropsychiatrist help diagnose psychiatric illness gy, is from 50- for diagnosing
J. Charnley mental health and fielding the 2024)”. 65, and problems not
McKinley at the disorders (Sellbom instrument (Floyd  Compute anything addressed by the
University of & Anderson, & Gupta, 2023)”. r/Paper outside of original MMPI
Minnesota 2013)”. and this range is (Duckworth,
(MMPI History, Empirically pencil marked as 1991)”.
n.d.-c)”. derived format clinically
personality test (Simply significant
Psycholo (Framingha
gy, m, 2016).
2024)

JPI The JPI (Jackson The Jackson The assessment  Compute Your raw 16 Years Provides an  Limited data
Personality Personality has a large A large r/ paper score for old and assessment of manipulatio
Inventory) Inventory-Revised item pool, and each scale is above personality and n
personality test (JPI-R) was extensive item pencil based on (SIGMA demonstrates a capabilities
was developed by designed to assess analyses, and format your Assessm variety of  Lack of
Douglas N. personality traits to careful item  300 responses to ent cognitive, advanced
Jackson, a predict an selection have true/false the Systems, social, and value filtering and
KATHLEEN MAI D. FRANCISCO
3PSYCH2

EVALUATION OF PERSONALITY AND INTEREST TESTS

psychologist and individual’s resulted in a items statements 2023). orientations, transformati

researcher at the behavior in a highly reliable (SIGMA that make up which affect an on
University of variety of settings assessment that Assessm that scale. A individual’s  Potential
Western Ontario and environments, minimizes ent high raw functioning performance
(SIGMA including work, response biases. Systems, score issues with
Assessment education, teams, The test items 2023). indicates that complex
Systems, 2023). and interpersonal correlate you queries
situations (SIGMA minimally with endorsed  Inconsistenc
Assessment desirability—the many of that ies across
Systems, 2023). tendency to scale's different
answer in a way statements implementat
that "sounds (SIGMA ions
good" rather than Assessment  Limited
answering Systems, error
honestly. The 2023). handling and
assessment also edge case
has features to This score is support
detect random or determined  Learning
non-purposeful by curve for
responding. The comparing complex
norms are based your score queries
on responses from for each
1,107 North cluster with
American the
individuals. correspondin
(SIGMA g scores of a
Assessment representativ
Systems, 2023). e group
consisting of
both m e n
and women.
Your score is
the
percentage
of the people
in the
representativ
 KATHLEEN MAI D. FRANCISCO
3PSYCH2

EVALUATION OF PERSONALITY AND INTEREST TESTS

e group who
received a
raw score
less than
your score
(SIGMA
Assessment
Systems,
2023).

EPPS The Edwards The EPPS is a Theoretical basis  210 pairs Identical Ages of Having selected Epps faced the
Personal widely used and – the need system of choice can 16-85 items based on perpetual problems of
Preference well-validated of Murray (1938) statemen be converted (Niwlika theory, Edwards response styles and
Schedule (EPPS) assessment tool for (Niwlikar, 2019). ts to a r, 2019). could avoid the biases (Niwlikar,
is a personality measuring (Edward percentile blind, 2019).
test the rates individual based on subjective, and
s
individuals on 15 differences in 1500 college men normative atheoretical
Personal
scales that personality and and women and data approaches of
measure their behavior. It is approximately Preferen (Niwlikar, other strategies
needs and particularly useful 9000 adults from ce 2019) (Niwlikar,
motives. It was for making the general Schedule 2019).
developed by inferences about an population , 2024)
American individual’s selected from  Paper-
psychologist interpersonal urban and rural and-
Allen L Edwards preferences, areas in 48 states. pencil or
in 1959 (Xu, academic (Niwlikar, 2019) online
2023). achievement, and format
feelings of power (Memjav
and dominance ad,
(Memjavad, 2023). 2023).
 Forced
This measure is choice
most commonly (Niwlika
used in personal r, 2019)
counseling
situations but is
also sometimes
 KATHLEEN MAI D. FRANCISCO
3PSYCH2

EVALUATION OF PERSONALITY AND INTEREST TESTS

used as a
recruitment tool
(Edwards Personal
Preference
Schedule (EPPS)
Definition |
Psychology
Glossary |
AlleyDog.com, n.d.)

NEO PI - 3 The NEO PI-R, a  Research Postulated in the ● NEO-PI-R NEO-PI R The T ● Internal Length of the items,
widely used Instrument Five-Factor items are requires a scores consistency: self-report nature,
questionnaire for Helps Model (FFM) - answered on a 5- 6th grade represent Cronbach's cultural bias, limited
the Five Factor determine: namely, point scale reading level standardi alpha predictive validity,
Model (FFM), Neuroticism, ranging from and is zed coefficients for supplemental
 Employee
offers a Extraversion, strongly agree (4) suitable for scores each personality diagnostic role.
Reliability
systematic Openness to to strongly that domain of the
 Psychopat use with
evaluation of Experience, disagree (0). consider NEO-PI-R
hology adolescents
emotional, Agreeableness ● 240 items the usually exceed
interpersonal,  Behavioral and ● Untimed but and adults scores of 0.80, indicating
experiential, Medicine Conscientiousness normally takes (12 years or other high internal
attitudinal, and  Career (Buduan, 2021). 45-60 minutes to older). individua consistency.
motivational Counselin finish ls in the ● Test-Retest
g Norms are
styles. This Objectively ● One-to-one/ normativ Reliability:
comprehensive derived group established e sample Studies show
personality personality Test administration for men and used for that NEO-PI-R
analysis serves as ● Available in two women test scores are
a beneficial tool forms: separately, scoring. generally stable
for various o Form S – and With a over time,
professionals instrument for combined mean of indicating a
(McCrae & Costa, self-rating into one- 50 and a high degree of
2010). o Form R – gendered standard reliability.
instrument used norms for deviation
It measures all for rating use in of 10, a T
five personality someone else personnel score of
dimensions: (Buduan, 2021) 50
selection
 KATHLEEN MAI D. FRANCISCO
3PSYCH2

EVALUATION OF PERSONALITY AND INTEREST TESTS

Agreeableness (McCrae & signifies

(A), Costa, average
Conscientiousness 2010). performa
(C), nce
Neuroticism (N), relative
Extraversion €, to the
and Openness to 17-89 years sample.
Experience (O). old Approxi
mately
Developed by 67% of T
Paul T. Costa, Jr., scores
PhD, and Robert fall
R. McCrae, PhD within
the range
of 40 to
60. T
scores
cannot
theoretic
ally
extend
beyond
80 or fall
below
20.
(McCrae
& Costa,
2010).
16 PF The Sixteen Primary purposes of The 16PF Fifth ● The 16PF 16 years and Reliability:The Impression
Personality Factor the 16PF are: Edition was questionnaire is a older The raw 16 personality Management,
Questionnaire administered to a paper and pencil scores factors have Acquiescence,
(16PF) is a  Psycholog large group (N = test. obtained good internal Infrequency
comprehensive ical 4,449), from ● The participants from the consistency,
assessment tool Research which a final have to select one 16PF with Cronbach's
designed to  Counselin normative sample option are alpha
evaluate normal- g and of 22,500 was ● There are no converte coefficients
range personality Therapy derived using a right or wrong d into ranging from
KATHLEEN MAI D. FRANCISCO
3PSYCH2

EVALUATION OF PERSONALITY AND INTEREST TESTS

traits effectively  Carreer stratified random answers to the 0.66 to 0.93. It

in various settings Counselli sampling method. statements. It standard has been
where an in-depth ng Sample takes 35-50 (sten) discovered that
understanding of  Personnal stratification was minutes to scores test-retest
individuals is Assessme conducted based complete the test using a reliability
needed (Cattell & nt on gender, race, ● norm ranges from
Mead, 2008)  Education age, and One-to-one/group table 0.68 to 0.95
al setting educational administration provide over a period of
factors, with the (Buduan, 2021) d 5–6 months,
target number for alongsid indicating high
each variable e the set stability over
derived from of hand time.
1990 U.S. Census scoring Validity: It has
figures (Conn & keys. been
Rieke, in press-a). Sten demonstrated
scores that the 16PF
are possesses strong
establis construct
Objectively hed on a validity,
derived 10-point indicating that it
personality test scale accurately
with a measures the
mean of intended
5.5 and construct
a (Ranja, 2023).
standard
deviatio
n of 2.
Each
item in
the test
correspo
nds to
one of
the 16
factors.
 KATHLEEN MAI D. FRANCISCO
3PSYCH2

EVALUATION OF PERSONALITY AND INTEREST TESTS

Strong Originally To provide a 6 General It contains a total 15 years old The The Strong can The Strong Interest
Interest developed by comprehensive Occupational of 291 items that and above mean of be a valuable Inventory may
Inventory Edward Kellhog assessment of an Themes: It was are asking a the GRS tool in helping not take into account
Strong Jr. to assist individual's broadened in the series of 282 job is 50 and you identify an individual's
individuals in vocational interests, latest revision due scenarios (e.g. standard your changing interests’
discovering work preferences, to fast “Working with deviation interests, overtime, which
suitable career and personal style, growing changes heavy machinery” is 10 (x̅ = enabling you to can evolve due to
paths based on with the aim of in the world of or 50, s = personal growth
their interests helping individuals work. For “Working with 10). All • Achieve and experiences, it
(Donnay et al., make informed example, the abstract ideas”) to four satisfaction in relies on
2004). decisions about conventional which there are Strong your work self-reporting, which
their career paths theme expanded five possible Interest • Identify career might be
(Donnay et al., to choices: Strongly Inventor options influenced by various
2004). include Like, Like, y scales consistent with factors,
professions with Indifferent, reflect your interests including social
computer Dislike, Strongly upon the • Choose desirability and
programming etc., Dislike. and 9 GRS to appropriate biases, and this
(Holland, 1959). questions to add breakdo education and assessment's
up that fall under wn training relevant results are most
Normal scores are Your percenta to valuable when
gender-matched Characteristics ges of your interests combined with other
against one of two subsection, with careers • Maintain a career
General options: Strongly and balance between assessment tools and
Representative Like Me, Like preferenc your work and individual
Sample (GRS) Me, es leisure activities counseling (Scheel &
pool (i.e. male or Don’t Know, accordin • Understand Kelly, 2010).
female), that Unlike Me, and g to aspects of your
consists of 2,250 Strongly gender personality most
people (50:50 Unlike Me (Yuan, closely
gender ratio 2023). associated with
(Yuan, 2023). your interests
• Determine
It is empirically your preferred
derived learning
occupational scale environments
• Learn about
your preferences
 KATHLEEN MAI D. FRANCISCO
3PSYCH2

EVALUATION OF PERSONALITY AND INTEREST TESTS

for leadership,
risk-taking,
and teamwork
• Use interests
in shaping your
career direction
• Decide on a
focus for the
future
• Direct your
career
exploration at
various stages in
your life

Self- John Holland To help you explore It is empirically SDS is easy to use John 11 years The Self- Some clients need
Directed career options. If derived and is usually Holland to 70 Directed Search more than
Search you have already occupational scale completed in 35 developed a years old (SDS) offers one session to
made up your to 45 minutes, hexagon, a everyone the completely
decision about an either digitally or model with opportunity to get the reasoning
occupation, it may by paper and six corners, discover their behind the
support your idea or pencil and an that shows interests, Inventory.
suggest other assessment the connect these to - The Inventory's
possibilities. If you booklet. The test relationship work forecasting
are uncertain is relatively cheap between environments, ability is somewhat
about what and the results are different and select the limited.
occupation to sent online in an types of perfect work
follow, the interpretive report personality environment
SDS may help you in pdf format. The and the this way.
locate a group SDS form suitable
of occupations for produces a few- work
further letter summary environment.
consideration. code, which can In the
(Holland et al., be used to look up hexagon, it
2016). the occupation’s seems like
KATHLEEN MAI D. FRANCISCO
3PSYCH2

EVALUATION OF PERSONALITY AND INTEREST TESTS

- to be clear about finder online the

the work you are (Janse, 2023). personality
more attracted to types that lie
and love doing. far from
You can shortlist each other
and assess your differ
employment strongly
options by using from each
your other, and
RIASEC code to the
better understand personality
the kinds of tasks types that
you tend to are close
perform at work together
and to gain a better share more
understanding of characteristi
your preferences. cs.

REFERENCES:

MMPI

MMPI History. (n.d.-c). University of Minnesota Press. https://www.upress.umn.edu/test-division/bibliography/mmpi-history

Duckworth, J. C. (1991). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2: A review. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69(6), 564–567.

https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1991.tb02644.x
KATHLEEN MAI D. FRANCISCO
3PSYCH2

EVALUATION OF PERSONALITY AND INTEREST TESTS

Floyd, A. E., & Gupta, V. (2023b, April 24). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality inventory. StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557525/

Simply Psychology. (2024, January 29). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). https://www.simplypsychology.org/what-is-the-minnesota-

multiphasic-personality-inventory.html#Administration

Framingham, J. (2016). Minnesota Multiphasic personality Inventory (MMPI). Retrieved from https://psychcentral.com/lib/minnesota-multiphasic-personality-

inventory-mmpi#What-Does-the-MMPI-2-Test?

Sellbom, M., & Anderson, J. (2013). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-09032-002

JPI

SIGMA Assessment Systems. (2023, December 22). Jackson Personality Inventory - Revised | SIGMA Assessment Systems.

https://www.sigmaassessmentsystems.com/assessments/jackson-personality-inventory-revised/

Jackson Personality inventory- revised. (n.d.). EdInstruments. https://edinstruments.org/instruments/jackson-personality-inventory-revised

EPPS

Xu, J. (2023). Edwards personal preference schedule [N/a]. In The ECPH Encyclopedia of Psychology: Vol. n/a (n/a, p. 1). Springer Link.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6000-2_73-1

Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. (2024). OXFORD REFERENCE. https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095743218

KATHLEEN MAI D. FRANCISCO
3PSYCH2

EVALUATION OF PERSONALITY AND INTEREST TESTS

Memjavad. (2023). EDWARDS PERSONAL PREFERENCE SCHEDULE (EPPS). Encyclopedia of Psychology.

https://encyclopedia.arabpsychology.com/edwards-personal-preference-schedule-epps/

Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) definition | Psychology Glossary | AlleyDog.com. (n.d.). https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?

term=Edwards+Personal+Preference+Schedule+%28EPPS%29

Niwlikar, B. (2019, April 26). Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) - Careershodh. Careershodh. https://www.careershodh.com/edwards-personal-

preference-schedule-epps/

NEO PI- R & 16PF

McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2010). NEO Inventories professional manual for the NEO Personality Inventory-3, NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3, and NEO

Personality Inventory-Revised. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

JP Buduan. (2021, July 7). PSYCH Lecture | Eysenck, Costa, McCrae, Cattell | Trait Theories | Theories of Personality | Taglish [Video]. YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D33VOyGGib8

Cattell, H. E. P., & Mead, A. D. (2008). The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). In SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks (pp. 135–159).

Conn, S. R. & Rieke, M. L. (Eds). (in press-f) The 16PF Fifth Edition technical manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.

Ranjha, A. (2023, March 19). 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire » Psychology Roots.Psychology Roots.https://psychologyroots.com/16-

personality-factor-questionnaire/#:~:text=Reliability%20and%20Validity, Reliability%3A%20The%2016PF&text=Test%2Dretest

%20reliability%20over%20a,it%20is%20intended%20to%20measure.
KATHLEEN MAI D. FRANCISCO
3PSYCH2

EVALUATION OF PERSONALITY AND INTEREST TESTS

SII

Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Prentice-Hall.

https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040767

Donnay, D. A. C., Thompson, R. C., Morris, M. L., & Schaubhut, N. A. (2004). Technical Brief for the Newly Revised Strong Interest Inventory®

Assessment: Content, Reliability, and Validity. CPP, Inc.

Yuan, L. (2023, August 28). The strong interest inventory – the ultimate guide - the career project. The Career Project.

https://www.thecareerproject.org/blog/strong-interest-inventory-ultimate-guide/?

fbclid=IwAR2iQfUhB1SVKhwSfCLd9in7kmuoMIRFqfHmqGOibteLgqcUtC90KDvbv6Y_aem_AaF7ZijLrkbkxNufx5xwoIdeEuUFlxatoqe3OscZwB

D77u-gwRzlAfBrjQGBAuE-xnuwAExX6u224hEWKDyGw74F

Scheel, K.J., & Kelly, K.R. (2010). Strong Interest Inventory [2012 Revision]. The Eighteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook.

SDS

Holland, J., Shears, M., Harvey-Beavis, A., & Sample, K. (2016). SELF-DIRECTED SEARCH ONLINE REPORT ONLINE REPORT 2012 UPDATE.

https://www.acer.org/files/SDS_Sample_Report.pd

Janse, B. (2023). Self-Directed Search Assessment (Holland). https://www.toolshero.com/human-resources/self-directed-search/