yi Wst devised by bn an objactively seor esearch in, ology W give the most complet: ‘of porsonality possible in» sp brief tine. ‘Tho tost waa designed for with individuals agod sixtoon and “abores#oms A, B, C, and D, which are the subject of this Manual, aco moat ap- propriate for literate individuals whose educational level is roughly equivalent to that of tho normal high school atudent. Two other forms.of the test, E, which is presently available, and F, in prep- aration, are designed for individuals with marked educational and reading | deficits. The tost can be scored by hand ' or by machine and various types of an- _ | swor sheets aro available for this ree- | gon. Additionally, a computer interpre- tation service, described in Section 4 bolow, is available through IPAT. coverngs A more intensive description of the, sciontific and statistical properties of tho tost is given in the Handbook for the 16 PF.* Tho “presont Manual is a brief, practical guide, Handy for those actually giving and scoring tho test. + Comprehansive coverage of personelity rests upon measurement of sixteen func- tionally indopondent and psychologically Viv is ditGcult io « Manual of this size to fully documet thie Manual but are weated ia the f. ‘Thes compel wwe summary of eeventch Eadings withthe test ia the aren 1. A BRIEF ORIENTATION TO THE 16 PF TEST scnaatatinn willbe found in Se fandbook. Simla, is iien weed ie an include: (1} selectior monainpfal dimonsions isolated and rep licntod in moro than thirty yours of fnetor- analytic rosekech on normal and clin groups. The tost user may nood n litt practice to got used to handling as many a3 dixtoon traits, but the expanded pos- sibilities for understanding and predict ing behavior will more than compensate him for the effort involved. Tho personality factors’ moasured by the 16 PF are not just unique to the test but instead rest within the context of a general theory of personality. Nearly ten years of empirical, factor-analytic research preceded the first commercial publication of the test in 1949. For convenience, these dimensions are set out briefly below in Table 1.1. “Each factor is listed with its alphabetic designation and brief descriptions of low and high scores. A more detailed description of each scale is given in Section 6 of this Manual and in Chaptor 9 of tho Handbook. These sixteen dimensions or scales ere-essentially independent. Any item in the test contributes two the score on one and only one factor so that no de- pondencies were introduced at the level of scale construction. Moreover, the ex- porimontally obtained correlations among Psychology Department | i |TABLE 1.1 THE PRIMARY SOURCE TRAITS COVERED BY THE 16 PE TEST — Low Sten Score iTigh Sten Seore Factor Description . on Reserved, dewched, ertical, look. Guigoing, wermbearted, cenyguing, A stil participating, _Sizothyria® ‘Atfectathy ia . Del: foe Brake Low intélligehce. High Intelligence Emotionally atable, mature, faces reality, calra Higher ego strength Affected by feeling Ci aicet c Lower exo stesnith “Hamble, wild. “Antertive, aggressive, competitive, it kecommodatiag storm, Submissiveness - : Dominance ‘Sober, (acters, serious “Happy gotacky, enthusiastic Desuirgency : Suegeney sepedient, disregards rales Conacientious, persistent . moralistic. said Weaker superego strength Stronger superdxo strength TY Shv eid, direatses 7 Venturesome, uniahibited, socially bold Theeetia Parma a Tough minded. sll-relinat, Tenderminded, sensitive, clinging, 1 reali Sverprotected Macria : Premsia Trasting, sccptiog conditions ‘Seapicious, bard Co fool Alaxia : Proteasion MM Practical “dowetoearth™ concerss Imaginative, bebe atminded Praxernia sutia Forthright, unpretentious, genuine ‘Aitate, polished, socially aware 7 N- but socally demey Arilessness Shewies Self-asenred. placid, secure, “Apprekensive, selt-reproaching, insecure, © complacent: rene terry trotted Tntroubled sdequsey Guilt proneness TG Gonservetive:respectiog traditional iden Experimenting, liberal, treet . eer ol tempered Radiealom endixe, » “joiner” and ‘Selfsefcient, resourcelal, prelere stood talower ‘wn decisions e Group adherence Sell-sulfcieney Undisciplined selfconflct, lax, follows Controlled, exacting will power, own ures arcless of social rules socilly precise, compulsive, folowiog sellimnge Low selt-septiment integration High strength of self sentiment Relaxed. ranqe, lorgsd. Tense, ruatrated, driven, Q eatrustratéd, composed overwrought Low orp tension : High erg tension “Tides in roman type_ate the technical names for the (actors aad ate explained more fully in the Handbook. 6eee tho sixteen yeales aro generully quite small so that cach scale provides: some new piece of information about the per son being tested. In addition to the sixtoen primary fae: tors, the test can be used as a mensur of eight secondary dimensions which, as mentioned above, are broader trnits, scorable from the component primary factors in ways described in Section 7. Of course, oach psychologist must determine for himself the applicability of any instrument to the solution of prob- lems which he faces. Ii evaluating the 16 PF, tho essential elements he will wish to consider aro: 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 founda- tion of moro than ton factor analytic investigations across 0 pool of several thousand items; 3) that the psychometric properties of the scales (0.g., reliabilities, validitios, etc.) have been ex- plored and reported for variety of samples and conditions; and, 4) that rosearch findings involving the test (reported in numerous books and articles) provide the test user with a rich base of c1 terion evidence in industrial, clinical, social, and educational psychoiogy. Some of these issues ate troated briofly in this Manual, More comprehensive dis- cussions of those and other’ important issues will be found in the Handbook and in Cattoll (1973). It is: hoped that AG the text tonal f will consult those uddi- decision w parti tion will be based upon an informed, indivi- dual evaluation of the evidence sented. If, at first glanco, this nn uncorsyonublo demand upon the test user, he reminded that’ thi the main reasons why paychologicul tosts fare rostricted in use to qualified pro- fessionals. No test can bo applied un- critically to the wide variety of behav- “ioral experionces which havo and will continue to intrigue psychologists over the years. sources 0 that hi tise he Lest in Ine sity pro- seumss, is one of Tho general theory of personality from which tho 16 PF was dovoloped, how- ever, anticipated their demands along certain major dimensions. Thus, for ex- ample, related scales are available to measure primary source traits below the adult ago range for which the 16 PF is intended. Special purpose tests have been dovised to measure only one scc- ondary trait? such as anxiety and extra- version, when the psychologist wishes to focus and intonsify his measurement in this fashion. Similarly, the Clinical Analysis Questionnaire was developed to augmont tho power of the 16 PF in.. clinical usage by adding 12 scalos, sub- stantially patholojical in nature, to the 16 normal scalos. Translations of the 16 PF into 24 languages and sdaptations for’ other English-speaking cultures exist.to facilitate international compari- sons. pi : With this brief statement of dosign and purpose as a background, the test user can procoed to the remaining sec- tions of this Manual which deal directly with administration, scoring, and intor- pretation of test rosults. 7_ 2, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE TEST Atrongement of Questions. Ten to thir- teen’ items are ‘provided for each scale in Form A and,Fam-B. In Form C and Form D,-there are eight items for. the Factor B.scale, seven items for the ino- tivational'distortion scale, and sixitems for each of the remaining scales. The questions are arranged in-a roughly © clic order determined by a’ plan to give maximum convenience in scoring by sten- cil and to insure variety and interest for the examinee. + Method of Answering/ Three-alternative - answers are provided” for each of the questions, since , the -two-alternative “forced-choice” situation, forbidding any ‘‘middle of the road?" compioitise, lends to force ® distorted distribution. and:may produce aversion. to. the.test on the part of the examinee. This is-par- Gcularly the case with adults of average or higher intelligence for whom. Forins A, B, C,.and D are designed. With-children, or with less intelligent, less competent, or culturally deprived adults, 2 two- choice design, appears better, and such a design’ is used in the “low literate” scales of the 16 PF constructed for.use with such populations (Forms E and F). Avoidance - of — Motivational. Distortion Effects. . Questionnaires are often, jus- tifiably, considered susceptible to dis- tortion and deliberate faking. Test con- striiction is aimed to minimize this; but it is- also the responsibility’ of the -ex- Belo ts one a : * special aminer to neutralize sucti tendencies as far as possible. [Lis important to develop good rapport, and to let the client s that the test ean best contribute to hi ‘own benefit. if he cooperates with frank reports. Actually, items have been cho- sen t be as “neutral” in value as pos- sible, to emphasize both desirable and undesirable aspects at both ends of each factor scale. Furthermore, items which are not ‘face valid,” i.e., which do not obviously refer to the trait but which correlationally are known to measure it, have been chosen wierever possible; as a “builtin” protection against. distor- ion. In any case, this questionnaire problem is probably not so serious ns its frequent discussion might seem to indicate, since the psychélogist or coun- selor is most likely to use the test in those situations. where. the client fully realizes that accurate results will con- uibute to his own welfare: If time is taken to make sure that the person tested understands the importance of careful and truthful response, along step toward achieving good measures has been taken. Because Forms C and'D are very fre- quently used in Gccupational selection work, an additional safeguard-has been built inito these tests, in‘the form of a motivational "distortion (MD) scale. The nature of this scale and- its application’ -are discussed fully'in the Handbook and in. Tabilor Supplement No. 2 (which containg norms tor Forms C and D).“Intended Applications of the Various Forms. The primnry diffoonca betweon Fornis A’ and B, on the one hand, and Forms C and D, on tho other, is injthoir léngth and, therofore, tho time coquitod for adm ‘ation. Form A or Form B will gonerally requite about 45-60 minutos each for administration, while Form C and Form D require only about 25-35 min- utes each. Howevor, it is, urged that, wherever possible, at least two forms be used (¢.g., A +B or C+D), particu- larly in resoarch situations and in all cases where maximum precision is need- ed. On theother hand, where time is 1imitedl, modem psychometric understand- | ing “Gleusly supports the use of shorter, (ti-sconsistencies of the16 PF scaies, iad’ Vs; the agreement of the factor score wii itself under some change of con- liens, are given in all relevant ways. }____ The first type of consistency to con- sider is reliability or the agreement of the Fector score over time. Reliability may be furthor subdivided into (a) de-. perdability; i.c., Shori-term tst-retese correlations, and (b) stability, i.o., re- tost-after e longorintervel. perlinps less roliablo, measures -of. all vixtoon fuctors, rathor than oxpondituce of the game total availablo time in longor (and therefore moro valid) measures of fowor factors. Beyond the time differences, the read- ing level cequired for Forms C and D is slightly lower than that required for Forms A.end B. This difference is not great, however, and when the test ad- ministrator feels he will encounter sub- stantial reading problems he would be well advised to consider using Form E which was specifically designed for per- sons well below the “‘normal”” (Bth grade) educational level. Consistencies of the Sixteen Scales Table 2.1 shows dependability est mates for various test forms end combi nations of forms. In all cases, retesting was done within one week after the Grst administéation. Table 2.2, which is taken from the 18 PF Handbook, shows stability estimates fot four samples. The time in- terval ranges between 2-and 48 months. As will be soen in Table 2.2, the consis- tency in factor scores is quite good even over a four-year interval.TABLE 2.1 16 PF DEPENDABILITY COEFFICIENTS: Test:Retest with 2. to 7-Doy Intervals Source Troi Fom A 6 C E F GH ft L M N O Q Q G3 % ae 86 79 82 83 90 81 92 9 7B 75 77 83 82 85 GO 72 ae 81 58 78 80 7° 81 83 77 75 70 61 79 73 73 62 a1 Be 75 Sk 7% 80 B1 77 89 79 77 70 60 81 70 75 62 87 (A+ oy 89 65 87 88 90 88 93 89 87 82 76 89 63 BS 78 91 (A+B). 62 45 76 78 8 75 86 83 GF 68 60 76 66 76 76 80 (c+ do "82 76 83 77 80 83 86 83 75 68 67 "79 75 68 77 82 Note: Decimal points have been omitted, TABLE 2.2 16 PF STABILITY COEFFICIENTS: Test-Retest with 2- to 48-Month Intervals Form A 8 c fe F GH MoM 0 QQ O a% (A+ Bye 85 62 75 85 78 84 88 87 76 71. 74 77 83 BI 70. 78 ae 20 43 66 65 74 49 80 85 75 67 35 70 50 S7 36 bbe A(Moles)© 49-28-4547 4B «SAA 6B «AOA «3957 52 AG AY «56 A (Famoies}? 62 23 48 52.52 46 64 -53 42 49 21 52 51 50 4 51 bt we-end. N= 46, from LaForge (1962). GFouryese ‘iow Nichols 965). Four fom Nichols (1965). Kote: Decimal poinis have been omitted The equivalence coefficients between most frequently encountered are given single parallel forms and a certain com- in Table,2.3. These values are about-as bination of parallel forms that might .be high-as tests typically reach for thé nuin+/ ber of items. 10= TABLE 2.3 EQUIVALENCE COEFFICIENTS OF TEST FORMS FOR EACH TRAIT ach? 35 49 4839 «36 44 oe Mate ci o 8 Bo oO Rigs: This ‘brief presenta haust the entire realm of discussion concegning test consistency and the in- torested.teader will want-to consult the Handbook. for more details. The. coeffi- cients given here, however, are those which the test administrator will be con- does not ex- 0 0; 7 0; a 59 39 43 6? 47 6% 1 51 2% 40 7 79 67 6 4% 35 $6 51 37 SS 6a cemed with most frequently. As is ev dent in all three of these tables. sub- stantial increases in consistency are possible by using more then one form of the test and we again urge’ that such combinations be used in all casos where maximum precision is needed. Validities ‘The items in these final forms are the survivors fromsoveral tliousands of items originally ttied,and constitute onty those which Continue to have significant valid- ity against the factors aftor ten success- ive factot analyses (Cattell, 1973) on differont:samplos. Those analyses have both verified tho existence and natural structure ‘of the sixtoon: factors, and cross-validated the test items’ in their correlation with. the factors-on different. adult population-samplos. 7 ‘The validity of the test itself is meant to bea concept (or “‘construct’”) vatidi ty. That’ i§ to'say, the test questions (Gi tems), “as-stated above, are-chosen as being good measures of the personality factors, as these factors are cepresentéd in rosearch enalysis. This concept valid- ity of the scales can be evaluated direct- ly by correlating the scale score with the fiure factor it was designed to meas- ure. Tablo2.4 gives these concept valid- ‘ty values for single forms and for various ncombinations of the forms. As with con sisioacy, it is evident that substantial ovecall inicconses in validity are possible: By using more than ono form.of the test. ~ “SUNT ovoii Tor tho relatively brief (G-item) scales of Forms Gand D, the validity coefficients are oxceptionnlly high. TABLE 2.4 + DIRECT CONCEPT VALIDITIES OF THE 16 PF SCALES % 7 Source Troi Fom oN A 8 C E F GH I'L mM NX 0 @ @ Q & A+B 958 86 53-77 71 88 77 94..80 67 71 64 86 468 80 BO 63 C+D 794 87 91 63 82 90 S&4 90 45 65 85 74 71 68 82 70 80 A 958 79 35 70 63. 83 67 92 70 49 44 41 71 62 70 68 57 8 958 78 44 66° 64 79 69.87 75 63 73 -60 81 51 70 69 59 Tore: Decimal poitis have been omitted. The concept validity may also be eval- uated indirectly by determining how well the test scale’s correlations with a repre- sentative sample of diverse psychologi- cel variables agree with those the con- ceptual critorion (pure factor) is expected to have. (For further details, see the Handbook, pp. 38-39.) Table-2.5 presents these concept validities, indirectly eval- uated, for the full 16 PF (Forms A i B +C+D). It will be seen that direct and indirect estimates of validity agree quite well. Both approaches place A and F, for ex- ample, sinong the highest, and M, N, O, and Qi among the lowest. The-direct concrete validities- of the scales'(i.e., their correlations with spe- cific, external ‘criteria) cannot be so neatly tabled as tho concept validities have been above. This is simply because the -number of external criteria against TABLE 2.5 INDIRECT. CONCEPT VALIDITIES OF THE FULL 16 PF QQ Qs 96 95 O17 63. 84 883 90 93 93 12whien the 16 PY has heen validated i extremely large. The render will want to examine the Handbook on this point, particularly Chapters 12, 13. und 14, where much of this information is sun marized, Additionally, the Handbook ney cafe dibliogenphy and the supplemen Section # of thi dor to the vast number of Manni! wil th guide studies conducted with cho test, nun greater dot where’ validities are reported in 3. INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADMINISTRAT! Of Generel. Simplo ‘and clear instructions are printed for the examinee on the cover page of the test booklet. Although the test can be virtually sel{-administering, it is always’ important to establish good “‘rapport”” with the examinees, whether tested individually or in groups. Further, itis good tq reinforce the instructions by orally reiterating that the examinee will, in the long fun, be doing himself most good by boing frank and honest in describing himself. To the trained psychologist, the im- portance of this brief but intimate talk with the client cannot be easily exagger- ated, for the creation of a favorable test- taking attitude is worth as much or pos- sibly more in the production of necurate data.than any number of “lie” je” or ‘*cor- rection” scales. If there is serious doubt of the client's correctness of response, it may be well to reconsider the progcam in terms of introducing objective tests as in the [PAT 0-A Battery (see Ref- erences in Handbook). Some demonstra- tion of the degree to which distortion can be reduced in a potentially uncoop- erative group by appropriate instruction has been demonstrated by some signi- ficant lowering of average scores of a large client group upos the “'MD"' (moti- vational distortion) scale of the 16 PF, Form C or D, aftor good rapport, was ob- tained Detailed Instructionz. Answers ace al- ways made on a separate answer sh never on the rousable test booklet. Tell the examinee whether to tear off the back of the test booklet es an answer sheet, or whether to use a separate an-" swer sheet which is to be provided. Have him enter his name, etc., at the top of the answer sheet, and then ask him to read the instructions on the cover of the test booklet to himself, and then to work the four examples. It may be desirable to read tho instructions aloud with the client, or to discuss cortain points. The examiner must be the judge of the best way to got across the instruction to the ‘examinees in each pecticular situation. About five minutes should be allowed for ceading the instructions and working tho oxamplos, or less if less time seems sufficient. Then say, “Turn the page and begin’” 13hast is uiitiied baritis good to : cxaminees that they should not yall, hut should give immediate answers, and move along. In group tests, if one wisi op avoid along wait for stragglers, it way Se helpful to interrupt after about tea ciinutes, saying, “Mos! people are now doing question ” (according to the proctor’s observation of cases as he walics around and his knowledge of whatis typical). Kd ly take forty-five to sixty minutes: por form. It is also good to look around ud correct early nny imprope of indi cating answers that might Inter cause difficulty in scoring, Make sure thatinn have boen fillod in before collecting 1 swer sheets, and especially that onc, and only one, answer is given for every question on the t 4, PRINCIPLES AND MECHANICS OF SCORING Each answer scores 0, 1, or 2 points, except the Factor B (intelligence) an- swers which score 0 (incorrect) or 1 (correct). The score of each item con- tributes to only one factor total. Tests can be eitlier hand scored, with a stencil key, or machine scored. Hand scoring is accomplishéd by.key, easily, rapidly, and in a standard manner. The answers appear es pencil marks in the boxes on the given ‘answer sheet. Two cardboard stencil scoriig keys are used; one covers Factors (traits) A, C, F, H, L, N, Qi, and Qs, and the other, Factors B, E, G, J, M, 0, Qo, and Q. Simply fit stencil 1 over the snswer sheet and count the marks visible through the holes for Factor A, allowing either 2ior “If this-ie quite impostible, BS of items 4 jowered: wad (6) rounding the avawer to the ie shewimust be seated, seule by 0) obtaining the score fsom the ca ia ther sce ‘score by the total nomber of tems ia the seule (3, 1, a8 indicated by the number printed adjacent to the hole. Sum these scores, and entér the total in the spnee indicated by the arrow on the stencil for Factor A (raw score); but note that Factor B (intel- ligence) is poculiar in that each correct mark visible in a hole-gives a score, of J only. Before using the scoring stencils, the technician should take quick look at each answer sheot to make sure that thete are no odd, unscorable responses, e.g, matking two out of three alterna- tives, or entirely omitting any response to an item. If such misunderstanding of instructions has occurred, the examinee “must go back ‘and do the affected items correetly.* full scale Score wey be eatimated fr any affected hick have been correctly snawered: (2) multplyin povondsieh, @) diviaing his eth oy the sober avest whole Dumber,Machine Scoring. Computer scoring of 16 PF answer sheets is available through IPAT’s Test Services Division and through National Computer Systems Minneapolis. IPAT’s Test Catalog iden- tifies the types of answer sheets that should bo used with tho various servicos, which provide the tost usor with raw scores and standard scores on each of the sixteen ‘scales, plus scores on four second-order factors and tliree additional _ The meaning of raw scores from any form or combination of forms of the 16 PF depends, of course, upon the particular forms used. Consequently, bofore these raw scores cnn be evaluated and inter- preted, they must bo converted into a system which places, tho examinee's score in relation. to scores obtiiined by other people in some defined population (normal adults, college students, adult |males only, etc.). (Phe standardization Drstes convert raw scores to whet are called stens, a practice consistent with best modern usage, aiming at a good, bist not unrealistically cofined degree of ac- curacy in expreSsion of results. ton: scores “(the torm’ comes from | ‘standard ten’) are distributed over ten | tqual-interval standard score points (as- | uming normal distribution) feom 1 thcough , with the population average (or mean), ped « sten 5.5. Stans.5 and 6 oxtend, spectively, a half standard deviation criterin “(nouroticisin, londership, und , crontivity), Also availuble, through IPAT, for sers of the 16 PF is a computer inter- pretation service. This service provides ‘a narrative report from an individual pro- file which gives projections on a number of important, real-life criteria useful in industrial, clinical, and educational de- cisions. 5. DESIGN OF THE NORM TABLES: CONVERTING RAW SCORES TO STENS bolow and above the mean, constituting thie solid conter of the population, while the outer limits for stens 1 and 10 are 2¥% standard deviations above and below tho moan. Ono would consider stens of 5 or 6 as average, 4'or 7 slightly deviant (rospoctively in a low and a high direc- tion), 2, 3, 8, and 9 strongly deviant, and. 1 or 10 extremé, all thesé being placements of the: person relative to the defined population on which the standard- izations aro based. The available selection of norm tables permits the conversian of ‘any givon raw score (as obtained from. the application of the scoring koy) for any of the sigo7 teen personality factors to.stens. The tables cover the general adult. popula- tion and ‘various sub-samples, with vari- ous tables for individual forms and for froquently oncountored combinations of forms.’ Since “usors like. to make thoir 15comparisons ‘against ralatively spocilic roference groups, as well as against the general population, IPAT has pro- vided norm tables in throe groups: 1. high school students (juniors and seniors), 2. university and college under- graduate students, 3. general adult population. Within each group tables are available for men, women, and for men and women together. Other special groups may be added as it becories desirable and feasi- bite to do so. Thus, a large number of norm tables are available and it is ac cordingly necessary to select the proper one with some care, according to the logical and psychological definition of the use to which. the scores will-be put. In. order not to encumber this Manual unduly, and to pormit periodic revisions of norms: independently of Manual or Handbook revisions, these norm tables ate published and available separatoly ss tabular supplements to the 16 PF Handbook. (Supplement No. { contains norms for Forms A and B. Norms for Forms C and D are given in Supplement No. 2.) Test constructors realize that general adult standardizations sre the most. dif- ficult to obtain; but in this case, a sub- stantial attempt has been made to obtain a stratified representation of various ‘educational levels, geographical arcas, ages, and occupattoms 2s they occur in the U.S.A. (see Handbook). The present norms are correct for the last four or five years, over which they were gathered, and“actually no cultural poriod trends in personality factors have yet been dem- onstrated to upset them. The standardi- zations of the most recent revisions of 16 tho four forms of the tast rest upon more than 15,000 individual cas The sizes of samples, the moans: und standard deviations of raw scores, and the approprinto tities are givon in each table. Tho values within ench tablo in the body of tho table) are ‘raw scores? = tho values obtained with the scoring stencils. To convert these raw scores into standard: ten-point scores, io4— stens, one finds the taw score for Fac- tor Ain the ‘‘A” line and reads the cor- responding sten score above it. One then proceeds likewise for the other factors. The proceduro is quite simple and is further explained on the norm tables thomselvos. Personality factor scores have slight ago trends (not so strongly as. intelli- gence in children, nor necessarily in ono direction). Researchers, and those doing very exact anslyses, may wish to allow for these, in which case they -should consult tho full tables and discussions in the Tabular Supplements. However, the majority of users will not have thi time for. these fine modifications, and, inoreover, in’ most situations are more concerned with comparing people as they stand today, not Jim Smith ten years hence with Harry.Jones when he wus a boy. .The norms given; for the general adult population are centered upon and corrected.'to 30 years of age, the high school population centered upon and corrected to 17 years of age, and tho college population centered upon and correctad to 20 years of age. To repeat, | age corrections. are sometimes of-critical importance in research, but.of negligible | significance in rgutine use of the test, and for this reason their extensive dis- cussion is. relegated to the Handbook and to the Tabular Supplements.6. INTERPRETATION OF THE PRIMARY FACTORS Prodictions of scores on various: cri- toria, and assignment of individuals to yatious diagnostic clinical groups, can be carried out actuarially, by computa- tion from standard scores, using methods discussed in detail in the Handbook. and elsewhere. Where no correlations with criteria are known, knowledge of the psychological nature of the factors must guide initial .pradiction until empicical studies can be done in'a particular situa- tion. Moteover, eyen where corralational, actuarial -ovidenco about a certain vri- terion is available, it is desirable t add psychological judgment to immediate statistical computations t6 allow for changes of personality with learning, maturation, otc., or for anticipated changes in life situation. Zach of the primary factors measured by tho 16 PF hes an alphabetic dosig- nation (A through Q,), a tochnicul title (which is given in paronthoses in tho following descriptions), snd a brief, less technical title (given hero in bold- face), which the practitioner will most. commonly use. ‘The dofinitions and interpretations of the factors, as given below, are short, non-technical, 2d, of course, less exact than the more intensive discussions available in the Handbook and elsewhere (see Handbook References and the list ‘of supplomentary references given in Soction 8 of this Manuai). Furthermore, the large number of profiles given in the Handbook for well-dofined occupational and clinical groups provides the psy- chologist with additional insights into the meaning and operation of the (actors. Capsule Descriptions of the Sixteen Primary Personality Factors ~ Low Score Direction FACTOR A v3. Outgoing, Reserved, Detached, Critical, Cool (Sizothymia) . The person who scores low (sten of 1 to 3) on Factor A tends to be stiff, cool, skeptical, and aloof. He likes things rather than people, working alone, and avoiding compromises of viewpoints. He is likely to be precise and “rigid” in his way of doing things and. in personal’ standards, and’ in many oc- cupations these are desirable traits. He may..tend, at: times,. to. be .critical, ob- structive, or hard, Z ~ hearted, kindly, Score Direction ‘Warmhearted, © Easy-going, Participating (Atfectothymia) The person who scores high (sten of 8 to 10) on Factor A tends to be goodna- tured, easy-going, emotionally expressive (hence naturally Affectothymia), ready to cooperate, attentive to people, soft- adapiable. He: likes occupations dealing with people .and so- cially impressive situations. He readily forms. active groups. He is generous in personal ‘relations, less afraid. of criti- cism, better able to remember names of people. WwFACTOR B : Conerete-thin! Less Intelligent, (Lower scholastic mental. enpreity) Bs. The person scoring low on Factor B tends to be slow to learn and grasp, dull, given to ‘concrete and litera, interpreta- tion. _ His’ dullness. may be..simply a reflection of low intelligence; or it; may. represerit’ poor functioning due to psy- ‘shopathology. More Intelligent, Abstract-thinking, ” ‘The person who scores high on Factor B tends to be quick to grasp ideas, a fast learner, intelligent. ‘There is some corre- “Jation withJevel of culture, and some with alertness.’ High scores contraindi- caté'deterioration of mental: functions pathological cotttitronis-* FACTOR C. * “Arfected By Féelings; Emotionally Less vs. Stable,-Easily Upset (Lower: ego strength) " The pérson-who ‘scores low on Factor C tends.to be low in‘frustration tolerance for unsatisfactory conditions,-changeable and plastic, evading necessary. reality demands,neurotically fatigued, -fretful, easily» emotional . and anndyed, . active. in dissatisfaction, having neurotic symp-- toms - (phobias, ‘sleep -disturbances,. ‘psy- “chosomatic complaints, ete.}:-Low Factor: © score is ‘common to ‘almost all. forts:of neurotic and'omie psychotic disorders. « “Conforming, = (Submissiveness} ~ ‘The. person’ “wa ‘scores‘low'on Factor = Evtends'to give way. to-others, to be-doc- _ ile;-and-to-conformn, He is often ‘depend- ent, :confessing,. anxious for obsessional correctness. This passivity is. part of = many neurotic syndromes. 18 : Bmoticnally. Stable; ices: Reality, “oss SeGalm,. Mature “llighcr “ego strength) -The person who scorés high on’Factor Ctends:to be emotionally: mature,’stable, realisti¢ about‘life, unruffled, possessing égo strength; better-able to maintain ‘solid person:making'a-resigned: adjustment” to uiisélved ‘emotional problems. © good °C: level “sometimes enables -a person to hive effective. adjustment. deopite’an_under- Tying yeh potential: -< : “the person Sores igh» on Factor E. js: Jaséertive;-self-assured,..and inde- pendént-ininded:'; He tends’ to’be austere, 4 law to himself, hostile.or extrapunitive, iavaginig. fithere), and disregards authority.FACTOR F Prudent, Serious, (Desurgeney) Sober, ‘The person who scores low ori Factor F tends to be restrained, reticent, introspec- tive. He is sometimes dour, pessimistic, unduly deliberate, and considered smug and primly correct by observers. He tends to be a sober, dependable person. Vaciturn Huppy-ge-tucky, Umputsively Lively, Enthusiast (Surgeney) ‘The person who scores high on this trait fends to be cheerful, active, talka- tive, frank, expressive, effervescent, care- free. He is frequently chosen as an elected leader. He may be impuisive and mercurial. FACTOR G Expedient, Evades Rules, Feels Few Obligations (Weaker superego strength) ‘The person who scores low on Factor G tends to be unsteady in purpose. He is often casual and lacking in effort for group undertakings and cultural de- mands. His freedom from group influ- ence may lead to anti-social acts, but at times makes him more effective, while his refusal to be bound by rules causes him to have less somatic upset from stress. vs. Conscientious, Persevering, Staid, Rule- bound (Stronger superego strength) ‘The person who scores high on Factor G tends to be exacting in character, dom- inated by sense of duty, persevering, responsible, plenful, “fills the unforgiv- ing"minute.” He is usually conscientious and moralistic, and he prefers hard-work- ing people to witty companions. The inner “categorical imperative” of this essential superego (in the psychoanalytic sense) should be distinguished from the superficially similar “social ideal self” of Q.4. FACTOR H. Shy, Restrained, Diffident, Timid ' (Threetia) ‘The person who scores low on this trait tends to be shy, withdrawing, cautious, retiring, a “wallflower.” | He usually has inferiority feelings. He tends to'be slow and: impeded in speech wnd-in-expressing himself, dislikes occupations with person- alscontacts, prefers’ one or two’ close, friends to large groups, and is not given to. ketping/in contact, with all that is going. on around-him, ~ vs. Venturesome, Socially-bold, Uninhibit- + ed, Spontaneous (Parmia) ‘The person. who scores high on Factor H. is sociable, bold, ready to try new things, spontaneous, and abundant in emotional response. His “thick-skinned- ness” enables him to face wear and tear in dealing with people and grueling emo- tional, situations, without fatigue. How- ever, fie can be careless of detail, ignore danger signals, and consume much ‘time talking. He tends to :be"“pushy" and actively interested in the opposite sex. wwsplvntiuded, Seli-reliant, Rea No-nonsense (Horria) tis person who sores low on Factor L Lauds to be practical, realistic, masculine, independent, responsible, but skeptical of , cultural elaborations. He is somtimes unmoved, hard, cynical, smug. Us tends to keep a group operating on practical and realistic “no-nonsense” FAC’ ic, TOR I uded, Dependent, Protected, Sensitive (Prema) The person who scores hip Ttends to be tender-minded, day dr ing, artistic, fastidious, feminine, Me ist sometimes demanding of attention and help, impatient, dependent, impractical He dislikes crude people and rough occu- pations. He tends to slow up group Tender on F <~——performance, and to upset group morale by unrealistic fussiness FACTOR L Trusting, Adaptable, Free of Jealousy, vs.Suspicious, Self-opinionated, Hard to Easy to Get on With (Alexia) ‘The person who scores low on Factor L tends to be free of jealous tendencies, adaptable, cheerful, un-competitive, con- cerned about other people, a good team worker. : Fool (Protension) The person who scores high on Factor Ltends to be mistrusting and doubtful. He is often involved in his own ego, is self-opinionated, and interested in inter- nal, mental life. He is usually deliberate in his actions, unconcerned about other people, a poor team member. ND. This factor is not niecessatily paranoia. In fact, the data on faranoid sthizophrenics are not clear as to typical Factor 1 value to be expected FACTOR M Practical, Careful, Conventional, Regu- us. Imaginative, Wrapped up in Inner Ur- lated by External Realities, Proper (Praxernia) The person who scores low on Factor M tends to be anxious to do-the right things, attentive to practical matters, and. subject to the dictation of what is obvi- ously pgssible. He is concerned over detail, able'to keep his head in emergen- cies, but sometimes unimaginative. ¢ gencies,, Careless of Practical Matters, Absent-minded {Autia) ‘The person who scores high on Factor, M tends to’ be unconventional, unco cerned over. everyday matters, Bohem an, self-motivated, imaginatively creative, concerned with “essentials,” and oblivious of' particular people ang physical reali- ties. . His inner-directed interests some- times lead to: unrealistic situations ac- ‘companied by ‘expressive outbursts.. His individuality tends to cause him to be rejected it: group activities.