Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs

Section I

Introduction: Core Issues in Assessment

Outline

Chapter 1 Criteria for Selection and Evaluation of Scales and Measures

Chapter 2 Response Bias, Malingering, and Impression Management

Chapter 1

Criteria for Selection and Evaluation of Scales and Measures

Gregory J. Boyle¹, Donald H. Saklofske² and Gerald Matthews³,    ¹University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia,    ²University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada,    ³University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA

The origins of this volume go back over 50 years to a collection of social attitude measures compiled by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan (see Robinson & Shaver, 1969). The original work was substantially updated and configured as an edited volume by Robinson, Shaver and Wrightsman in 1991. Its scope was increased to cover personality as well as attitude measures. The current editors share the goals of previous editors in seeking to provide systematic reviews of high quality instruments. Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes was enormously successful in providing a concise compendium of a broad range of scales and measures that were extremely useful for social-personality research and assessment. However, it is now more than two decades since this volume was published, so it is time to produce a completely revised and updated resource for researchers and practitioners alike. In addition, the landscape of assessment in personality and social psychology is very different from that in 1991, and we briefly introduce this volume with an overview of some of the key developments that have impacted assessment methods since that time. The original title has been broadened to encompass, Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs, thereby allowing inclusion of a considerably wider range of key topics, in a major expansion from 12 chapters in the 1991 version, to no fewer than 26 substantive chapters in the present volume. An examination of the most often cited areas of research and professional need, and more frequently used measures in the current social-personality literature further guided our selection of the chapters covered in this book.

Keywords

practicality/utility; questionnaires vs. objective tests; reliability; response scales; social-personality scales/measures; standardization; validity

The ever increasing knowledge of human behavior emanating from psychological research and allied disciplines is matched by the need for reliable and valid measures to assess the constructs used in both the research laboratory and applied settings. Measures of personality and social psychological factors have been a major contribution from psychology since the early part of the last century and continue to proliferate to this day. There is no lack of interest in the assessment of the wide range of personal characteristics, both familiar and novel, but rather a demand for more and better measures. The ever-increasing array of specific scales/measures available to researchers and practitioners alike is a sign of the strength of psychology’s contributions to our knowledge of human behavior.

Concurrent with our descriptions and models of human psychology have been advances in the methods underlying scale construction and validation. In contrast to how ‘tests’ of 100 years ago were constructed, standardized, and evaluated, there has been a steady evolution in both the foundations and methods of psychological measurement and in the rigor demanded by both researchers and practitioners over time. Psychologists and all others impacted by the study and applications of psychology expect the precision, exactness, and accuracy in the measures used to assess what are often theory driven constructs (latent traits) such as extraversion, anxiety/neuroticism, self-concept, narcissism, empathy, and perfectionism. Like subatomic particles and gravity in physics we cannot directly see such hypothetical constructs as intelligence or empathy, but we can infer their ‘existence’ because of observed individual differences in behavior. Thus, we can create quantitative models to describe these latent traits and, in the process, also develop measures that reflect their theoretical and operational definitions.

The rapid growth of psychological tests was readily observed from the early part of the 20th century onward (see Gregory, 2014). By the third decade, the Mental Measurements Yearbook founded by O.K. Buros in 1938 (now 19th MMY; see Carlson, Geisinger, & Jonson 2014), along with the Tests in Print series, both published by the Buros Institute for Mental Measurements (now the Buros Center for Testing), was created to both catalogue and provide critical reviews by experts on the ever increasing number of assessment instruments. Large test publishing houses, focusing on the development and marketing of psychological tests appeared early in the last century such as Houghton Mifflin (now Riverside Publishing), and The Psychological Corporation (now Pearson) founded by J. McKean Cattell in 1921. A growing journal literature on assessment including both the foundations and professional psychology applications, but especially new measures, began to appear. Studies of assessment now appear in peer-reviewed journals such as Assessment; Applied Psychological Measurement; Educational and Psychological Measurement; European Journal of Psychological Assessment; International Journal of Selection and Assessment; International Journal of Testing; Journal of Personality Assessment; Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment; Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment; Journal of Testing and Evaluation; Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation; Psychological Assessment, as well as a host of personality, organizational, clinical and school psychology journals.

Handbooks on psychological assessment have proliferated and we can expect to see new volumes published regularly such as the recent three volume APA Handbook of Testing and Assessment in Psychology (Geisinger et al., 2013), and the Oxford Handbook of Child Psychological Assessment (Saklofske et al., 2013). Other major resources include the 11-volume Test Critiques series (Keyser & Sweetland, 1984–1994; Keyser, 2005), the APA PsycTESTS online database (focusing mainly on unpublished tests, not commercially available), as well as the current editors’ 4-volume SAGE Psychological Assessment series (Boyle, Saklofske, & Matthews, 2012), all of which have become increasingly important to researchers and practitioners alike (also see Boyle & Saklofske, 2004; Boyle, Matthews, & Saklofske, 2008).

Another important tool for finding relevant measures of focal constructs is the Health and Psychosocial Instruments (HaPI) database, produced by Behavioral Measurement Database Services (BMDS; Pittsburgh, PA, USA – available online from Ovid Technologies).

‘The HaPI database can be used to find alternative versions of existing instruments (e.g., original vs. short forms; state vs. trait forms; adult vs. child versions), available translations of instruments, and multiple scoring frameworks for a given instrument …The flexibility of combinatory searching (e.g., optimism ‘and’ trait ‘and’ English ‘and’ children) offers far greater power and efficiency in finding measurement tools than the printed sources can provide. But the sources cover a plethora of tests ranging across a diversity of fields including education and psychology.’ (Bryant, Pers. Comm., 2012)

Professional Associations such as the American Education Research Association and the American Psychological Association, as well as the Association for Psychological Science have assessment ‘right up front’ in their publications and conferences and ongoing continuing education offerings, as well as working diligently to ensure ‘best practices’ and ethical guidelines for use of psychological tests. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA, NCME, 1999) are regularly updated in light of new knowledge (cf. Boyle, 1987). This effort has been further supported by the International Test Commission (ITC); the first sentence on the ITC webpage states that it is an

‘association of national psychological associations, test commissions, publishers and other organizations committed to promoting effective testing and assessment policies and to the proper development, evaluation and uses of educational and psychological instruments.’ (ITC Directory, 2001, at www.intestcom.org)

Most professional and regulatory psychology associations see assessment for purposes of diagnosis and prescription planning as being central to the work of psychological practitioners, as expressed through their publications, guidelines and codes of ethical conduct.

However, there is a downside to this proliferation of scales and information that is both cumulative and forthcoming on a continuous basis. It has become more difficult for researchers to determine and locate the best validated scales for a given construct as they can be scattered through a multitude of journals and books, and also in commercial presentations by publishers. Not all journals are necessarily available to those who might be interested in a particular measure or even traceable using internet searches. The internet is a mixed blessing here; ease of search is offset by the intrusions of poor-quality measures into the scientific as well as popular literature. As well, some scales have names or titles that do not directly relate to the construct being assessed and can therefore be missed in a typical online search.

Aims and Origins of this Volume

The aim of the present volume is to assist researchers and practitioners navigate these ‘choppy waters’ and locate valid scales/measures suitable for their specific goals from the plethora of instruments currently available. Thus, rather than simply serving as a catalogue of available scales and assessment instruments, or providing reviews of all currently available measures that would fall within the personality and social psychology frameworks, we have focused this volume predominantly on reviewing the most often used contemporary measures by experts in each of the areas selected for inclusion.

The origins of this volume go back over 50 years to a collection of social attitude measures compiled by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan (see Robinson & Shaver, 1969). The original work was substantially updated and configured as an edited volume by Robinson, Shaver and Wrightsman in 1991. Its scope was increased to cover personality as well as attitude measures. The current editors share the goals of previous editors in seeking to provide systematic reviews of high quality instruments. Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes was enormously successful in providing a concise compendium of a broad range of scales and measures that were extremely useful for social-personality research and assessment. However, it is now more than two decades since this volume was published, so it is time to produce a completely revised and updated resource for researchers and practitioners alike. In addition, the landscape of assessment in personality and social psychology is very different from that in 1991, and we briefly introduce this volume with an overview of some of the key developments that have impacted assessment methods since that time. The original title has been broadened to encompass, Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs, thereby allowing inclusion of a considerably wider range of key topics, in a major expansion from 12 chapters in the 1991 version, to no fewer than 26 substantive chapters in the present volume. An examination of the most often cited areas of research and professional need, and more frequently used measures in the current social-personality literature further guided our selection of the chapters covered in this book.

We first provide an account of the evaluative criteria which guided the reviews of each of the scales/measures, followed by a brief overview of the contents for each of the chapters that follow.

Systematic Frameworks for Personality Assessment

While major personality models and theories and accompanying personality inventories such as Cattell’s Sixteen Personality Questionnaire (16 PF), the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ-R), and the Comrey Personality Scales (CPS) dominated the psychological literature throughout much of the last century (see Cattell & Meade, 2008; Comrey, 2008; Eysenck & Barrett, 2013; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985), converging lines of evidence from psychometrics, behavior genetics, longitudinal studies and cross-cultural research have contributed to the current popularity of various versions of the Five Factor Model or FFM (e.g., McAdams & Pals, 2006; McCrae & Costa, 2008; Poropat, 2009). At the same time, there have been significant challenges to the FFM, including alternate systems (e.g., Ashton & Lee, 2008; Block, 1995, 2001; Boyle, 2008; Cattell, 1995; Eysenck, 1991, 1992). As Piekkola (2011) pointed out:

‘According to this approach there are five underlying structural factors common to all people and independent of cultural influences – an asocial, ahistorical, biologically based conception. Examination of the theory finds it to be dealing with traits of temperament rather than personality and judges it insufficient on that basis. Rather than conceiving of personality as fixed and universal, it is argued that personality is an adaptation worked out in the cultural and historical context of the individual life.’ Piekkola (2011, p. 2)

Moreover, broad factors necessarily fail to capture much of the normal personality trait variance, let alone the abnormal trait variance (Mershon & Gorsuch, 1988). Indeed, use of multiple lower-order or ‘primary’ personality scales has been shown to improve predictive validity (Paunonen & Ashton, 2001). The present volume aims to highlight measures of a range of social-personality constructs that are more narrowly defined than those of the FFM and other broad factors.

Social-personality research and assessment requires multivariate models, whether these are drawn from complex theoretical models describing direct and indirect (mediational or moderating) influences, empirical evidence, case studies, or the clinician’s experience and capacity to create heuristic descriptions to guide intervention and preventive actions. As the measures reviewed in the current volume demonstrate, social-personality measures have become increasingly integrated within mainstream disciplines of psychology including psychophysiology, cognitive neuroscience, and cross-cultural psychology (Boyle, Matthews, & Saklofske, 2008a,b; Matthews et al., 2009; Saklofske & Zeidner, 1995), although some doubts have been expressed over the extent to which integration is possible (Cervone, 2008). One source for optimism comes from evidence that core concepts in personality and social psychology may sometimes ‘interact’ in various ways that present a larger and more complete picture of cause, pathway, and effect models. Renewed attention to advancing theory, and the development of new statistical techniques for analyzing large data sets (e.g., multilevel confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling; Rowe, 2003) have led to a slow but steady advance (Roberts et al., 2007), whether those processes are neurologically based or traced to social-cognitive influences. In turn, theoretical progress raises the bar for construct validation in scale development. The onus is on researchers to establish a case for interpreting psychometric scores in terms of process-based theory.

Theoretical insight and empirical evidence is accompanied by practical application. For example, occupational psychology has moved on from its historical roots towards a more measured appreciation of the benefits and limitations of systematic personality assessment. A series of meta-analyses of social-personality measures as predictors of various occupational outcomes has played an important role in this process (e.g., Swider & Zimmerman, 2010).

Across various fields of application there is an increasing demand for personality and social psychological scales/measures that are valid and reliable, as well as being defensible in more general social, economic and legal terms. At the same time, practitioners are also aware of the well-known limitations of the self-report questionnaires that are most commonly used, including their vulnerability to conscious and unconscious motivational response distortion (see Helmes et al., Chapter 2), and their neglect of implicit traits and attitudes that require assessment via behavioral measures. Good practice in social-personality scale development and use can mitigate some of these limitations, but advances in standardized objective test measures (cf. Schuerger, 2008) as well as structured observation and interview (cf. Rogers et al., 2010), will likely feature strongly in any future edition of this volume.

Key Themes in Personality and Social Psychological Assessment

The time when a single volume could hope to include coverage of all important constructs in personality and social psychology is long past. Instead, the editors of this volume have aimed to highlight constructs that are influential in theory and practice, and for which there have been substantial advances in measurement since 1991. Some of these constructs (e.g., anger/hostility, sensation-seeking, self-esteem) are well established but development of measures is ongoing. Others (e.g., measures of alexithymia, emotional intelligence, dark personalities) are of more recent vintage and define newer areas of inquiry (cf. Matthews et al., 2004). Our selection of constructs was guided by five themes that are prominent in the current social-personality literature (some constructs attach to multiple themes):

• Emotional dispositions. Many researchers habitually think of stable emotional tendencies in terms of negative affectivity (overlapping with neuroticism) and positive affectivity (overlapping with extraversion) (cf. Saklofske et al., 2012). While the importance of such trait constructs is undeniable, researchers often require more fine-grained assessments of emotionality and mood states, in relation to constructs such as anger and hostility, and hope and optimism. By contrast, there are also practical needs for the more broad-based construct of life satisfaction, a source of interest even to national governments. Whether narrowly or broadly defined, emotional dispositions also overlap with cognitive constructs such as self-esteem and confidence.

• Emotion regulation. Emotion reflects not only emotional dispositions but styles of emotion-regulation, because emotions are actively constructed and managed. Regulation implies both the capacity to be aware of the emotions of self and others, and capacities for modifying and managing emotion. Thus, measures of empathy and of alexithymia identify individual differences in awareness, and scales for resilience and for coping discriminate emotion management capabilities. Sensation-seeking may also be conceptualized as a style of emotion management in that experiencing thrills and excitement is a key personal goal. The construct of trait emotional intelligence represents an over-arching factor of this kind around which specific dimensions for awareness and management may cohere.

• Interpersonal styles. Convergence with personality trait perspectives allows social psychology to address stable interpersonal dispositions, although the relative importance of dispositional and situational factors remains a topic for debate. Individual differences in interpersonal style may be rooted in the attachment patterns established early in life. Like emotional dispositions, interpersonally defined constructs also bring together cognitive and affective dimensions. People differ cognitively in relation to concerns with public image and social evaluation. The ways in which people interpret themselves as social beings also influences – and is influenced by – social emotions such as forgiveness. Indeed, social psychologists emphasize the interpersonal roots of seemingly personal qualities including self-esteem and emotional intelligence.

• Vices and virtues. In the natural science tradition, personality psychologists have been wary of value-laden constructs. However, values have always been central to studies of social attitudes. In recent years, values have attracted more attention in personality as well as social psychological research, as shown most directly in studies of values and moral personality. Measures of religiosity and the transcendental are also relevant in this context. Values are not always benign. Researchers have also been interested in traits that are closer to vice than virtue, described as dark personalities or the dark triad of narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Some seemingly beneficial traits such as perfectionism may also represent a misapplication of values such as striving for excellence.

• Sociocultural interaction and conflict. In a globalized and culturally fluid world, many people are challenged by the need to get along with others whose interpersonal style and values are different from their own. Relationships between people affiliated with different social groups are a perennial concern of social psychology, but the last 20 years have seen major developments in inter-cultural assessment. The importance of cross-cultural studies is highlighted by including a chapter on personality, beliefs and values across cultures. From the social–psychological perspective, measures of intergroup contact may define both positive and negative aspects of contact between different ethnic groups. Regrettably, contacts are often harmed by stereotyping and prejudice. An example is the prejudice often experienced by gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals, explored here in relation to attitudes towards sexual orientation. Finally, contrasting with the ‘emic’ approach of investigating culturally-rooted traits, researchers also pursue the ‘etic’ approach of applying general measures of personality across cultures.

Criteria for Scale Evaluation

As in the 1991 volume, a number of evaluative criteria were employed in reviewing the scales/measures, including item construction criteria, motivational distortion criteria, and psychometric properties. In determining the approach to the presentation and evaluation of the scales to be described in each chapter we were guided by several criteria relating to reliability, standardization, validity, and utility (Boyle et al., 2012; Ormrod, Saklofske, Schwean, Andrews, & Shore 2010; Saklofske et al., 2013). Thus, the lens for viewing and evaluating any psychological scale, test or assessment instrument must take into account both psychometric properties and practical considerations. In regard to the psychometric criteria for assessing construct validity, the present volume focuses closely on the factor analytic structure of each of the scales/measures discussed, as well as providing close scrutiny of convergent/concurrent, divergent/discriminant, and criterion/predictive validity as well as the reliability of each of the respective measures.

Reliability

A scale/measure may be deemed psychometrically sound if the scores obtained from it manifest ‘good’ reliability reflecting consistency over time (test–retest), consistency across parallel forms, as well as consistency across raters (inter-rater reliability). Despite the common misperception, reliability coefficients reported in test manuals relate only to the scores obtained from specific samples. Importantly, and overlooked by many textbooks on assessment, reliability is not a feature of an actual scale/measure itself, but rather it is a property of the responses of individuals to the items within the particular scale/measure (see Thompson & Vacha-Haase, 2000).

Measures of item homogeneity within a scale (Cronbach alpha, KR20, split half) cannot assess the consistency of individuals’ responses over time. Such indicators (e.g., Cronbach, 1951, 2004) provide not only an index of (i) internal consistency; but also of (ii) item redundancy. A high Cronbach alpha coefficient (0.8 or 0.9) may simply reflect high item homogeneity related to internal consistency and/or item redundancy (Boyle, 1991). Thus, if an item is rephrased in a number of different ways so that each is merely a variant of the same item (i.e., measuring the same discrete piece of information), each of the variants cannot contribute new information, and the breadth of measurement of the particular construct/factor remains narrow. Therefore, despite common misperceptions, maximizing alpha coefficients may not necessarily be a good strategy for selecting which items to retain within a given scale/measure.

More desirable is a greater breadth of measurement whereby each item contributes new information with regard to the particular construct/factor under consideration (Boyle, 1991). Kline (1986) proposed that Cronbach alpha coefficients should fall within the 0.3 to 0.7 range. Lower than 0.3 and the scale has insufficient internal consistency; higher than 0.7 and the scale has too much item redundancy (cf. Schmitt, 1996). Furthermore, Zinbarg et al. (2005, p. 123) stated that, ‘important information about the psychometric properties of a scale may be missing when scale developers and users only report α as is almost always the case.’ The frequent reporting of high alpha coefficients in the psychological test literature as the sole evidence of a scale’s reliability can only be frowned upon. While statistical packages such as SPSS may view the alpha coefficient as an index of ‘internal reliability’ this is really a misnomer, as what is being measured is not consistency over time, but rather, item homogeneity. Moreover, Cronbach (2004) argued that measurement error is a better metric for reporting and assessing reliability than is the alpha coefficient. Indeed, Cronbach (2004, p. 403) concluded that, ‘I no longer regard the alpha formula as the most appropriate way to examine most data. Over the years, my associates and I developed the complex generalizability (G) theory…’ (cf. Brennan, 2001; Webb et al., 2006). Thus, analysis should go beyond computing simple ‘internal consistency’ coefficients to determining reliability generalization (Thompson, 2003). However, as the authors of most social-personality scales/measures have reported estimates of ‘internal consistency’ such as alpha coefficients, we include these details in the chapters that follow.

Reliability of scores over time is best examined through test–retest methods, in terms of both the immediate test–retest (dependability) coefficients and longer-term test–retest (stability) coefficients over days, weeks, months, years, etc. (cf. Cattell, 1973, pp. 352–356). It would be expected that for both state and trait measures, dependability coefficients would be high (say 0.8 or 0.9), that longer-term stability coefficients would remain relatively high for trait measures (say 0.7 to 0.8), but would be considerably lower for state measures (say 0.3 or 0.4), if they are truly sensitive to situational variability (Boyle, 1985, 2008). To take just one illustrative example, Borteyrou et al. (2008), reported that for the French adaptation of Spielberger’s STAXI-2, over a two-month test–retest interval (N = 139), stability coefficients were found to be .70 for the trait anger scale and .32 for the state anger scale, respectively. Unlike more enduring trait dispositions, the scores on transient state constructs are expected to vary across time due to contextual influences such as environmental stressors and circadian rhythms (Matthews et al., 2002). Thus, one must be careful not to expect high stability coefficients when they are not theoretically or clinically relevant (such as for emotional state and mood state measures).

Standardization

Standardization is important for measures that will be used across persons so that the administration instructions, content format, and scoring procedures are predetermined and identical no matter who administers and/or undertakes the scoring. Today, computerized scoring of many personality measures is readily available, thereby standardizing scoring procedures and removing the possibility of scoring errors. When such measures are normed, each person’s raw score is interpreted in relation to the most relevant normative group. The same point applies to criterion referenced measures whereby an individual’s score is compared with a preset listing of performance criteria that may be dichotomous (‘met or exceeded’ vs. ‘did not meet’). For example, emotional intelligence (EI) measures based on an ability model most often assign meaning or at least address the question of ‘how much’ of the characteristic a person has by a comparison with subjective ‘expert’ definitions of emotional competency. Trait EI measures, on the other hand, rely on normative data from large groups or standardization samples as the basis for individual score interpretation. Thus, methods for standardizing a scale/measure may also impact on the interpretation of obtained scores.

Validity

The validity of a scale/measure and the test scores as they relate to meaningful information about the person have traditionally been bound to content, criterion and construct validity. While classical test theory views of validity have been criticized for being both limiting and not focusing on the validity of an individual’s scores, these components still form much of the method of validating tests. Messick (1980, 1995) extended the view of validity to include multitrait–multimethod comparisons as well as the social consequences of assessment. Given the sophistication of current statistical techniques, validity can now be assessed beyond more static convergent and discriminant validity coefficients. Both exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory (CFA) factor analysis, measurement invariance statistics and especially structural equation modeling (SEM) have expanded the way a measure of a construct or latent trait is understood (e.g., Cattell, 1978; Child, 2006; Comrey & Lee, 1992; Cuttance & Ecob, 1987; Gorsuch, 1983; Loehlin, 1998; McDonald, 1985). SEM has moved us from examining simple correlation patterns between a predictor and criterion measure or from descriptions of static personality factors (e.g., FFM – see Cattell, Boyle, & Chant, 2002), to testing competing structural models of trait constructs in dynamic patterns of cause and effect and moderating and mediating relationships with other factors. Item response theory (IRT; Embretson & Reise, 2000), based on formal modeling of the influence of person and item parameters on test responses has also become increasingly influential in assessment.

Despite the increased popularity of CFA, many scales/measures have been constructed using less than optimal factor analytic methods (Costello & Osborne, 2005). While many EFAs have been based on item intercorrelations, such item responses are notoriously unreliable. For this reason, intercorrelations of item-parcels (Cattell), or of Factored Homogeneous Item Dimensions or FHIDs (Comrey), have been preferred as the starting point for reliable factor analysis (see Cattell, 1978, 1988; Comrey, 2008; Comrey & Lee, 1992). The use of sound EFA methodology remains essential in valid test construction (e.g., use of an iterative maximum-likelihood procedure with squared multiple correlations (SMCs) as initial communality estimates and number of factors determined by an objective Scree test (Gorsuch & Nelson, 1981; Hakstian et al., 1982; Raîche et al., 2012; Zoski & Jurs, 1996), parallel analysis (Velicer & Jackson, 1990), plus oblique (direct Oblimin or Promax) rotation to maximum simple structure (Child, 2006). All too frequently, psychological scales have been constructed using less than optimal factor analytic methods that fail to attain maximum simple structure solutions. For example, Kaiser’s (1970) ‘Little Jiffy’ approach (principal components, with number of components determined by the eigenvalues greater than one rule, plus orthogonal Varimax rotation) necessarily results in inflated loadings that fail to differentiate between common factor variance, unique variance, and error variance. This crude ‘Little Jiffy’ approach has been critiqued extensively (Boyle et al., 1995; Cattell, 1988; McDonald, 1985). Maximizing the ±0.10 hyperplane count (Boyle, 2008, p. 299; Cattell, 1978, 1988) provides empirical evidence of the approximation to simple structure criteria.

Practicality

A scale/measure may be psychometrically sound with good reliability and validity indices and map onto a comprehensive theoretical foundation, but if it is lengthy to complete or complex to score, then it lacks practical utility (cf. Schuerger’s, 2008, discussion of the Objective Analytic Battery which includes performance tests of factor analytically derived personality trait factors, but takes more than 5 hours to administer). Also, given the high cost of psychological assessment services, there is a trend towards having available both longer and shorter forms of the same measure. Certainly the longer form of a measure can give more information and finer descriptions at the subscale and item level, but short forms can well serve screening needs or an immediate estimate of the characteristic being assessed. Short forms are also useful in many research studies where there is limited testing time available due to the necessity to measure a wide range of variables. Despite the increasing popularity of short forms in both research and professional psychology, the disadvantage is reduced reliability, in line with predictions based on the Spearman–Brown prophecy formula (cf. Stanley, 1971).

Other Considerations in Scale Construction

Clearly, the psychometric attributes of reliability, standardization, validity, and utility operate conjointly. For example, no matter how ‘elegant’ in appearance or how compelling is its ‘face validity’, a scale that incorporates more measurement error than true score variance and is a poor predictor of relevant criteria, adds nothing or may even detract from the very purpose for which it was intended. At the same time, adequate psychometric characteristics, whether of a personality questionnaire, an attitude checklist, or a specific social-personality scale, are essential for accurate measurement and assessment.

In this regard, the most frequently used response scale formats include 4-point forced-choice scales, and 5-point Likert-type scales (cf. Likert, 1932). Dawes (2008) investigated the effects of using 5-point, 7-point or 10-point response scale formats on mean scores, and their dispersion. He found that while use of 5-point and 7-point scales resulted in the same mean scores, use of a 10-point scale produced significantly lower (p < .05) mean scores (Dawes, p. 61). Accordingly, the choice of response scale format needs to be considered carefully in constructing self-report and rating scales such as those reviewed in this book (see Carifio & Perla, 2007).

Hubley and Zumbo (2013) described two broad classes of psychometric theory that provide a roadmap for developing scales/measures used in social-personality assessment, including both rational theory based approaches as well as observed score and latent variable approaches (see also Zumbo & Rupp, 2004). As can be seen in the descriptions of the various measures included in each of the following chapters, both approaches are used in a reciprocal and complementary way in scale development, standardization and validation, irrespective of whether or not a particular measure is based on a rational theory approach (e.g., MSCEIT; Mayer et al., 2003) or an empirical factor analytic approach (e.g., 16PF; Cattell & Mead, 2008).

The psychometric underpinnings of test construction and validation leading to the production of theoretically and practically useful scales, much like the theories that guide them, have undergone considerable change since the ‘brass instrument’ era of Galton or the publication of the 1939 Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale (now WAIS-IV; see Weiss, Saklofske, Coalson, & Raiford 2010). Many of the scales presented in this volume were created in the past 10–15 years and have been developed with an increased psychometric sophistication reflecting changes in validity models and methods. A valid scale/measure should correlate positively with scores on other measures of the same or similar constructs, and correlate negligibly with unrelated measures or negatively with measures of related but different constructs (e.g., measures of curiosity correlate negatively with measures of anxiety, but they are discrete constructs), and exhibit significant (positive or negative) correlations or standardized beta coefficients predictive of real-life criteria. Traditional views (Campbell & Fiske, 1959) have focused on validity as an empirical feature of a scale/measure and have been mainly concerned with construct validity (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955).

Furthermore, reverse-worded items typically are loaded by a separate factor suggesting that they measure a distinct construct (i.e., reverse-worded items do not simply measure the inverse or opposite of a particular construct – e.g., see Boyle, 1989). Therefore, inclusion of reverse-worded (reverse-keyed) items in rating and self-report scales potentially may be problematic. In view of this problem, some scales/measures have been constructed, deliberately avoiding the inclusion of reverse-worded items (e.g., the Melbourne Curiosity Inventory; Naylor, 1981). It is noteworthy, however, that many more recently constructed scales/measures have not addressed this source of measurement error, and have prominently included such reverse-worded items in the hope of minimizing certain response sets (such as yea-saying or nay-saying).

Also, there appear to be ethnic group differences in responding to Likert-type scales. For example, Bachman and O’Malley (1984, p. 491) reported that:

‘blacks are more likely than whites to use the extreme response categories, particularly the positive end of agree–disagree scales…The findings reveal potential pitfalls in dealing with racial differences in survey and personality measures, and illustrate the need for great caution in reporting and interpreting such differences.’

The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA, NCME, 1999) stated that validity must also be tied to the test scores (or measures derived from a test) and the interpretation of test data. While test scores must be viewed in relation to standardization and normative data, reliability, and additional factors such as moderator variables, ‘test validity is central to test interpretation’ (Decker, 2013, p. 37). Five sources of validity evidence are prescribed in the standards and include: test content, relations to other variables, internal structure, response processes, and consequences of testing (cf. Boyle, 1987; Sireci & Sukin, 2013). The focus on validity in the present book is extensive in examining convergent/concurrent validity, divergent/discriminant validity, construct/factor analytic validity, and criterion/predictive validity.

While we can expect to see increasing sophistication in methods of assessing the psychometric qualities of scales/measures, a final note on validity is warranted here. Messick (1998) has argued that a scale’s validity should not be constrained to just the mechanics of construct and criterion validity but also take into account how an individual’s responses on a scale/measure are interpreted, as well as the likely resulting social consequences. This is reflected in a 2 × 2 matrix describing validity from the perspective of test use and interpretation (i.e., test function) in relation to the evidential and consequential basis. More recently, Hubley and Zumbo (2011) have expanded on Messick’s (1998) inclusion of social consequences and have presented a list of the forms of evidence that should be considered when determining the interpretation and use of test scores, including: score structure, reliability, content-related evidence, criterion-related evidence, convergent and discriminant evidence, group evidence, invariance (across groups, contexts and purposes), social and personal consequences, including unintended social or personal side effects. Ethical questions and guidelines abound on the use of scales/measures (e.g., for diagnosis, or selection), and test interpretation has been ‘battled’ in the courts of law, although psychometric scales in themselves are just measures.

Chapter Contents

Here, we briefly introduce the chapters, in relation to the broadly defined thematic areas just described. This chapter and the one that follows introduce core issues for social-personality assessments. Questionnaires based on subjective self-reports are so prevalent in the field, despite their known limitations, that their usage requires special attention. As Helmes, Holden, and Ziegler discuss in their chapter on Response Bias, Malingering and Impression Management, detecting and countering response bias is critical for securing valid measures from personality and attitude questionnaires. Their chapter covers contemporary scales for assessment of bias and related constructs, as well as promising new constructs and future challenges.

The section on Emotional Dispositions reviews measures of general affective tendencies, cognitive dispositions closely linked to emotion, and transient states. In the first chapter in this section, Bryant and Harrison review Measures of Hope and Optimism: Assessing Positive Expectations of the Future. Hope and optimism tend to overlap but they are conceptually unique and can be distinguished psychometrically as both global and more context-specific constructs. Fernandez, Day, and Boyle review Measures of Anger and Hostility in Adults. Taking the MMPI as the starting point for measuring anger traits, they demonstrate how contemporary anger and hostility scales may be used to assess a range of expressions and facets of anger/hostility. Measures of life satisfaction have attracted attention from policymakers as well as psychologists. Weber, Harzer, Huebner, and Hills describe Measures of Satisfaction across the Lifespan, and discuss their utility for professional practice applications as well as basic research. In their chapter on Measures of Self-Esteem, Donnellan, Trzesniewski, and Robins highlight the long history of the self-esteem construct in psychology. Current assessment strategies are based both on well-established scales and several newer competitors. In their chapter, Stankov, Kleitman, and Jackson review Measures of the Trait of Confidence. These have proved useful in various contexts including academic and vocational tasks, decision-making and sports. In this domain, questionnaires are increasingly complemented by online, performance-based, assessments. Affects may be assessed as ranging all the way from transient emotional states, through longer lasting mood states, through motivational dynamic traits, all the way to relatively stable and enduring personality trait dispositions, the topic of the chapter on Measures of Affect Dimensions by Boyle, Helmes, Matthews, and Izard. This chapter points out that measurement using multiple instructions across a range of timeframes is clearly desirable.

Emotion Regulation scales go beyond general dispositions in measuring factors that may contribute to understanding and managing emotions. In their chapter, Bermond, Oosterveld, and Vorst discuss the use of Measures of Alexithymia to assess various facets of the person's level of difficulty in identifying and processing emotion, an issue relevant to clinical contexts. Because alexithymia scales are both research and diagnostic instruments, it is especially important that subscales are not highly correlated, to allow diagnostic differentiation. In presenting Measures of Empathy: Self-Report, Behavioral, and Neuroscientific Approaches, Neumann, Chan, and Boyle et al. indicate both the complexity of the construct and its importance for interpersonal functioning. Questionnaires focus to differing degrees on the affective and cognitive affective components of empathy, with additional perspectives emerging from newer work on alternate behavioral and neuroscientific measurement approaches. Measures of Resiliency discussed by Prince-Embury, Saklofske, and Vesely are important for understanding vulnerability and resilience under stress, in both research and practical contexts, including educational and clinical practice. Scales for both children and adults are evaluated. Resilience may in part depend on the effectiveness of coping with stress. The chapter by Greenaway, Louis, and Parker et al. on Measures of Coping for Psychological Wellbeing describes both trait and state coping measures. Scales are placed in the context of theoretical frameworks for coping as well as future challenges. In the chapter on Measures of Sensation Seeking, Zuckerman and Aluja consider how assessments have progressed since the publishing of Zuckerman’s original Sensation Seeking Scales (SSS). Individual differences may be understood in relation to brain systems and their regulation by monoamine neurotransmitters and enzymes. The final contribution to this section is on Measures of Ability and Trait Emotional Intelligence, by Siegling, Saklofske, and Petrides. Emotional intelligence is a new integrative construct that may be measured via questionnaire or via performance testing. Measures may be designed either for the general population or for use in the workplace.

The section on Interpersonal Styles introduces some traditional social-psychological themes in the context of personality assessment. In their chapter on Measures of Adult Attachment and Related Constructs, Frías, Shaver, and Mikulincer consider how scales for attachment orientations and related constructs have developed from Bowlby's original observations and theorizing about attachment and separation. Such scales continue to evolve but remain pertinent for understanding adolescent and adult relationships. The chapter on Measures of Concerns with Public Image and Social Evaluation by Leary, Jongman-Sereno, and Diebels addresses how individuals differ in their concerns about how other people evaluate them, in their reactions to negative evaluations, and in their regulation of public impressions of themselves to others. The chapter presents measures of nine relevant personality characteristics. In the chapter on Measures of Forgiveness: Self-Report, Physiological, Chemical, and Behavioral Indicators, Worthington, Lavelock, and van Oyen Witvliet et al. set out scales for various aspects of forgiveness, including forgiveness of self and others, as well as trait and state measures. The chapter also includes objective behavioral, chemical, and psychophysiological indices that may be used to supplement self-reports.

The next section on Vices and Virtues is also at the intersection of personality and social psychology; adherence to moral standards is an individual characteristic that is shaped both by sociocultural influences and personality. The section begins with Campbell, Jayawickreme, and Hanson’s chapter on Measures of Values and Moral Personality. A variety of scales have been developed which allow personality researchers to complement other approaches to studying morality and the values which infuse moral decision-making and behavior. Koenig, Al-Zaben, Khalifa, and Al-Shohaib point out in their review of Measures of Religiosity and the Transcendental that religious and spiritual constructs can be nebulous and subjectively-defined. Quantitative scales/measures can support research progress. They focus primarily on measures of religiosity relevant to a range of faith traditions as well as scales for spirituality. Personality is defined by vices as well as virtues, a topic addressed by Paulhus and Jones in their discussion of Measures of Dark Personalities. The majority of scales are directed towards the overlapping constellation of traits often called the ‘Dark Triad’: Machiavellianism, narcissism and subclinical psychopathy. Additional dark traits with aversive interpersonal qualities may also be assessed (cf. Livesley, 2010; Widiger, 2012). Finally, in considering Measures of Perfectionism, Flett and Hewitt address an apparently virtuous trait that may carry some adaptive costs. The authors point out the complexity of the construct and the need for explicit conceptualizations to bring meaning to it. The scales/measures reviewed assess trait, cognitive, and self-presentational components of perfectionism.

The final section on Sociocultural Interaction and Conflict addresses one of the focal concerns of social psychology, relationships between different groups, and the socially-defined attitudes that may variously encourage harmonious group interactions or stoke adversarial relations. In reviewing Measures of Cross-Cultural Values, Personality, and Beliefs, Chiu, Chia, and Wan point out the importance of consensual culturally-defined views in solving complex social coordination problems. Their chapter reviews measures that are representative of the extensive efforts of cross-cultural psychologists to capture cultural differences in human psychology. In surveying Measures of Intergroup Contact: Predictors, Mediators, Moderators, and Outcomes, Lolliot, Fell, and Schmid et al. emphasize the practical and policy importance of contact for improving intergroup attitudes. Scales reviewed pertain to direct and extended intergroup contact, to mediating and moderating mechanisms, and to outcomes such as outgroup attitudes. The dark side of intergroup contact is prejudice. Fiske and North cover Measures of Stereotyping and Prejudice: Barometers of Bias. Contemporary scales for intergroup bias go beyond traditional concerns with authoritarianism and overt racism to also address more subtle biases associated with social dominance, racism, sexism and ageism. In their chapter on Measures of Attitudes towards Sexual Orientation: Heterosexism, Homophobia, and Internalized Stigma, Ryan and Blascovich are concerned with bias towards Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual (LGB) individuals. Measures are directed both towards bias shown by heterosexual persons, and the attitudes of LGB individuals towards their own sexual orientation. In reviewing Measures of Personality across Cultures, Fetvadjiev and van de Vijver consider the cross-cultural application of general personality inventories (i.e., monoculturally-devised measures that were not intended to capture inter-cultural aspects of personality). The format of this chapter differs a little from the others, as the focus of the research reviewed is not the monocultural reliability and validity of individuals’ scores on the measures, but rather, the extent to which measures show quantitative structural equivalence or similarity of dimensional structure across different cultures.

In closing, the following chapters written be leading experts have been structured to follow a template that reflects current views on test validity, reliability and utility. We have also followed the general outline used in the previous volume (Robinson et al., 1991), although expanding upon it, as the information is germane to evaluating the psychometric properties of the social-personality measures reviewed in the current volume. We asked authors to focus on the most often used and cited scales/measures with a particular emphasis on those published in recent years. Each scale is identified and described, the sample on which it was developed is summarized, reliability and validity data presented, and a final comment from the chapter authors precedes presentation of the scale, in full or in part, where permission has been obtained to do so. In some instances, permission to reproduce the full or even part of the scale was not obtained but the references to it will guide the reader to its location.

References

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association & National Council on Measurement in Education, 1999 American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association & National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for educational and psychological testing 3rd ed. Washington D.C.: AERA; 1999.

Ashton and Lee, 2008 Ashton MC, Lee K. The HEXACO model of personality structure. In: Boyle GJ, Matthews G, Saklofske DH, eds. The Sage handbook of personality theory and assessment: Vol 2 Personality measurement and testing. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2008; (pp. 239-260).

Bachman and O’Malley, 1984 Bachman JG, O’Malley PM. Yea-saying, nay-saying, and going to extremes: Black-White differences in response styles. Public Opinion Quarterly. 1984;48:491–509.

Block, 1995 Block J. A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin. 1995;117:187–229.

Block, 2001 Block J. Millennial contrarianism: The five factor approach to personality description 5 years later. Journal of Research in Personality. 2001;35:98–107.

Borteyrou et al., 2008 Borteyrou X, Bruchon-Schweitzer M, Spielberger CD. The French adaptation of the STAXI-2, C.D Spielberger’s State-trait anger expression inventory. L’Encephale. 2008;34:249–255.

Boyle, 1989 Boyle GJ. Breadth-depth or state-trait curiosity? A factor analysis of state trait curiosity and state anxiety scales. Personality and Individual Differences. 1989;10:175–183.

Boyle, 1985 Boyle GJ. Self-report measures of depression: Some psychometric considerations. British Journal of Clinical Psychology. 1985;24:45–59.

Boyle, 1987 Boyle GJ. Review of the (1985) ‘Standards for educational and psychological testing: AERA, APA and NCME.’. Australian Journal of Psychology. 1987;39:235–237.

Boyle, 1991 Boyle GJ. Does item homogeneity indicate internal consistency or item redundancy in psychometric scales?. Personality and Individual Differences. 1991;12:291–294.

Boyle, 2008 Boyle GJ. Critique of the five-factor model of personality. In: Boyle GJ, Matthews G, Saklofske DH, eds. The Sage handbook of personality theory and assessment: Vol 1 Personality theories and models. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2008; (pp. 295-312).

Boyle et al., 2008a Boyle GJ, Matthews G, Saklofske DH, eds. The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment: Vol 1 Personality theories and models. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2008a.

Boyle et al., 2008b Boyle GJ, Matthews G, Saklofske DH, eds. The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment: Vol 2 Personality measurement and testing. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2008b.

Boyle and Saklofske, 2004 Boyle GJ, Saklofske DH, eds. Sage benchmarks in psychology: The psychology of individual differences: Vol 2 Personality. London: Sage; 2004.

Boyle et al., 2012 Boyle GJ, Saklofske DH, Matthews G, eds. Sage benchmarks in psychology: Psychological assessment, Vol 2: Personality and clinical assessment. London: Sage; 2012.

Boyle et al., 1995 Boyle GJ, Stankov L, Cattell RB. Measurement and statistical models in the study of personality and intelligence. In: Saklofske DH, Zeidner M, eds. International handbook of personality and intelligence. New York: Plenum; 1995; (pp. 417-446).

Brennan, 2001 Brennan RL. Generalizability theory New York: Springer-Verlag; 2001.

Bryant, 2012 Bryant, F.B. (2012). Personal Communication (sent to GJB), 25 May.

Campbell and Fiske, 1959 Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin. 1959;56:81–105.

Carifio and Perla, 2007 Carifio J, Perla RJ. Ten common misunderstandings, misconceptions, persistent myths and urban legends about Likert scales and Likert response formats and their antidotes. Journal of Social Sciences. 2007;3:106–116.

Carlson et al., 2014 Carlson JF, Geisinger KF, Jonson JL, eds. The Nineteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press; 2014.

Cattell, 1973 Cattell RB. Personality and mood by questionnaire San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1973.

Cattell, 1978 Cattell RB. The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences New York: Plenum; 1978.

Cattell, 1988 Cattell RB. The meaning and strategic use of factor analysis. In: Nesselroade JR, Cattell RB, eds. Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology. New York: Plenum; 1988; (2nd ed., pp. 131-203).

Cattell, 1995 Cattell RB. The fallacy of five factors in the personality sphere. The Psychologist 1995;207–208.

Cattell et al., 2002 Cattell RB, Boyle GJ, Chant D. The enriched behavioral prediction equation and its impact on structured learning and the dynamic calculus. Psychological Review. 2002;109:202–205.

Cattell and Mead, 2008 Cattell HEP, Mead AD. The sixteen personality factor questionnaire (16PF).. In: Boyle GJ, Matthews G, Saklofske DH, eds. The Sage handbook of personality theory and testing: Vol 2 Personality measurement and testing. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2008;135–159.

Cervone, 2008 Cervone D. Explanatory models of personality: Social-cognitive theories and the knowledge and appraisal model of personality architecture. In: Boyle GJ, Matthews G, Saklofske DH, eds. The Sage handbook of personality theory and assessment: Vol 1 Personality theories and models. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2008;80–101.

Child, 2006 Child D. The essentials of factor analysis 3rd ed. London & New York: Continuum, International Publishing Group; 2006.

Comrey, 2008 Comrey AL. The Comrey Personality Scales. In: Boyle GJ, Matthews G, Saklofske DH, eds. The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment: Vol 2 Personality measurement and testing. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2008;11–134.

Comrey and Lee, 1992 Comrey AL, Lee HB. A first course in factor analysis 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1992.

Costello and Osborne, 2005 Costello AB, Osborne JW. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation. 2005;10:173–178.

Cronbach, 1951 Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297–334.

Cronbach, 2004 Cronbach LJ. My current thoughts on Coefficient Alpha and successor procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2004;64:391–418.

Cronbach and Meehl, 1955 Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin. 1955;52:281–302.

Cuttance and Ecob, 1987 Cuttance P, Ecob R, eds. Structural modeling by example: Applications in educational, sociological, and behavioral research. New York: Cambridge; 1987.

Dawes, 2008 Dawes J. Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. International Journal of Market Research. 2008;50:61–104.

Decker, 2013 Decker SL. Testing: The measurement and assessment link. In: Saklofske DH, Reynolds CR, Schwean VL, eds. The Oxford handbook of child psychological assessment. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013;30–47.

Embretson and Reise, 2000 Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item response theory Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2000.

Eysenck, 1991 Eysenck HJ. Dimensions of personality: 16, 5, or 3? – Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm. Personality and Individual Differences. 1991;12:773–790.

Eysenck, 1992 Eysenck HJ. Four ways five factors are not basic. Personality and Individual Differences. 1992;13:667–673.

Eysenck and Barrett, 2013 Eysenck SBG, Barrett P. Re-introduction to cross-cultural studies of the EPQ. Personality and Individual Differences. 2013;54:485–489.

Eysenck and Eysenck, 1985 Eysenck HJ, Eysenck MW. Personality and individual differences New York: Plenum; 1985.

Geisinger et al., 2013 Geisinger KF, Bracken BA, Carlson JF, Hansen JIC, Kuncel NR, Reise SP, eds. APA handbook of testing and assessment in psychology. Washington D.C: American Psychological Association; 2013; (3 Vols.).

Gorsuch, 1983 Gorsuch RL. Factor analysis 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1983.

Gorsuch, 1988 Gorsuch RL. Exploratory factor analysis. In: Nesselroade JR, Cattell RB, eds. Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology. 2nd ed. New York: Plenum; 1988;231–258.

Gorsuch and Nelson, 1981 Gorsuch RL, Nelson J. CNG scree test: An objective procedure for determining the number of factors. Presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Multivariate Experimental Psychology 1981; Vancouver, Canada, November 5-7.

Gregory, 2014 Gregory RJ. Psychological testing: History, principles, and applications 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson; 2014.

Hakstian et al., 1982 Hakstian RA, Rogers WT, Cattell RB. The behavior of numbers-of-factors rules with simulated data. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 1982;17:193–219.

Hubley and Zumbo, 2011 Hubley AM, Zumbo BD. Validity and the consequences of test interpretation and use. Social Indicators Research. 2011;103:219–230.

Hubley and Zumbo, 2013 Hubley AM, Zumbo BD. Psychometric characteristics of assessment procedures: An overview. In: Geisinger KF, ed. APA handbook of testing and assessment in psychology: Vol 1 Test theory and testing and assessment in industrial and organizational psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2013;3–19.

International Test Commission, 2001 International Test Commission (2001). ITC Directory. www.intest.com.org (Retrieved January 28, 2014).

Kaiser, 1970 Kaiser HF. A second generation Little Jiffy. Psychometrika. 1970;35:401–415.

Keyser and Sweetland, 1984-1988 Keyser DJ, Sweetland RC, eds. Test critiques. Vols. 1-7. Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation of America; 1988.

Keyser and Sweetland, 1991-1994 Keyser DJ, Sweetland RC, eds. Test critiques. Vols. 8-10. Austin, TX: PRO-ED, Inc; 1994.

Keyser, 2005 Keyser DJ, ed. Test critiques. Vol. 11. Austin, TX: PRO-ED, Inc; 2005.

Kline, 1986 Kline P. A handbook of test construction: Introduction to psychometric design London: Methuen; 1986.

Likert, 1932 Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology. 1932;140:1–55.

Livesley, 2010 Livesley WJ. Confusion and incoherence in the classification of personality disorder: Commentary on the preliminary proposals for DSM-5. Psychological Injury and Law. 2010;3:304–313.

Loehlin, 1998 Loehlin JC. Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1998.

Matthews et al., 2002 Matthews G, Campbell SE, Falconer S, et al. Fundamental dimensions of subjective state in performance settings: Task engagement, distress, and worry. Emotion. 2002;2:315–340.

Matthews et al., 2009 Matthews G, Deary IJ, Whiteman MC. Personality traits 3rd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2009.

Matthews et al., 2004 Matthews G, Roberts RD, Zeidner M. Seven myths about emotional intelligence. Psychological Inquiry. 2004;15:179–196.

Mayer et al., 2003 Mayer JD, Salovey P, Caruso DR, Sitarenios G. Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion. 2003;3:97–105.

McAdams and Pals, 2006 McAdams DP, Pals JL. A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psychologist. 2006;61:204–217.

McCrae and Costa, 2008 McCrae RR, Costa Jr PT. Empirical and theoretical status of the five-factor model of personality traits. In: Boyle GJ, Matthews G, Saklofske DH, eds. The Sage handbook of personality theory and assessment: Vol 1 Personality theories and models. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2008;273–294.

McDonald, 1985 McDonald RP. Factor analysis and related methods Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1985.

Mershon and Gorsuch, 1988 Mershon B, Gorsuch RL. Number of factors in the personality sphere: Does increase in factors increase predictability of real-life criteria?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1988;55:675–680.

Messick, 1980 Messick S. Test validity and the ethics of assessment. American Psychologist. 1980;35:1012–1027.

Messick, 1995 Messick S. Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performance as scientific inquiry into scoring meaning. American Psychologist. 1995;9:741–749.

Messick, 1998 Messick S. Test validity: A matter of consequence. Social Indicators Research. 1998;45:35–44.

Naylor, 1981 Naylor FD. A State-Trait Curiosity Inventory. Australian Psychologist. 1981;16:172–183.

Ormrod et al., 2010 Ormrod JE, Saklofske DH, Schwean VL, Andrews J, Shore B. Principles of Educational Psychology. Toronto 2nd ed. Pearson: Prentice Hall; 2010.

Paunonen and Ashton, 2001 Paunonen SV, Ashton MC. Big five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001;81:524–539.

Piekkola, 2011 Piekkola B. Traits across cultures: A neo-Allportian perspective. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology. 2011;31:2–24.

Poropat, 2009 Poropat AE. A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin. 2009;135:322–338.

Raîche et al., 2012 Raîche G, Walls TA, Magis D, Riopel M, Blais J-G. Non-graphical solutions for Cattell’s scree test. Methodology. 2012;9:23–29.

Roberts et al., 2007 Roberts BW, Kuncel NR, Shiner R, Caspi A, Goldberg LR. The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2007;2:313–345.

Robinson and Shaver, 1969 Robinson JP, Shaver PR, eds. Measures of social psychological attitudes. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research; 1969.

Robinson et al., 1991 Robinson JP, Shaver PR, Wrightsman LS, eds. Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic; 1991.

Rogers et al., 2010 Rogers R, Sewell KW, Gillard ND. SIRS-2: Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms Professional manual 2nd ed. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 2010.

Rowe, 2003 Rowe KJ. Estimating interdependent effects among multilevel composite variables in psychosocial research: An example of the application of multilevel structural equation modeling. In: Reise SP, Duane N, eds. Multilevel modeling: Methodological advances, issues, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2003.

Saklofske et al., 2013 Saklofske DH, Schwean VL, Reynolds CR, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Child Psychological Assessment. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2013.

Saklofske et al., 2012 Saklofske DH, Eysenck HJ, Eysenck SBG, Stelmack RM, Revelle W. Extraversion-introversion. In: Ramachandran VS, ed. Encyclopedia of human behavior. 2nd ed. London: Academic; 2012;150–159.

Saklofske and Zeidner, 1995 Saklofske DH, Zeidner M, eds. International handbook of personality and intelligence. New York: Plenum; 1995.

Schmitt, 1996 Schmitt N. Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment. 1996;8:350–353.

Schuerger, 2008 Schuerger JM. The Objective-Analytic Test Battery. In: Boyle GJ, Matthews G, Saklofske DH, eds. The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment: Vol 2 – Personality measurement and testing. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2008.

Sireci and Sukin, 2013 Sireci SG, Sukin T. Test validity. In: Geisinger KF, ed. APA handbook of testing and assessment in psychology: Vol 1 Test theory and testing and assessment in industrial and organizational psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2013;61–84.

Stanley, 1971 Stanley JC. Reliability. In: Thorndike RL, ed. Educational measurement. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: American Council on Education; 1971;356–442.

Swider and Zimmerman, 2010 Swider BW, Zimmerman RD. Born to burnout: A meta-analytic path model of personality, job burnout, and work outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2010;76:487–506.

Thompson, 2003 Thompson B, ed. Score reliability: Contemporary thinking on reliability issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2003.

Thompson and Vacha-Haase, 2000 Thompson B, Vacha-Haase T. Psychometrics is datametrics: The test is not reliable. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2000;60:174–195.

Velicer and Jackson, 1990 Velicer WF, Jackson DN. Component analysis versus common factor-analysis: Some further observations. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 1990;25:97–114.

Webb et al., 2006 Webb NM, Shavelson RJ, Haertel EH. Reliability coefficients and generalizability theory. In: Elsevier 2006;81–124. Rao CR, Sinharay S, eds. Handbook of statistics: Psychometrics. Vol. 26.

Weiss et al., 2010 Weiss LG, Saklofske DH, Coalson D, Raiford SE, eds. WAIS-IV Clinical Use and Interpretation. San Diego: Academic; 2010.

Widiger, 2012 Widiger TA. Changes in the conceptualization of personality disorder: The DSM-5 debacle. Clinical Social Work Journal. 2012;41:163–167.

Zinbarg et al., 2005 Zinbarg RE, Revelle W, Yovel I, Li W. Cronbach's alpha, Revelle's beta, McDonald's omega: Their relations with each and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika. 2005;70:123–133.

Zoski and Jurs, 1996 Zoski KW, Jurs S. An objective counterpart to the visual scree test for factor analysis: The standard error scree. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1996;56:443–451.

Zumbo and Rupp, 2004 Zumbo BD, Rupp AA. Responsible modeling of measurement data for appropriate inferences: Important advances in reliability and validity theory. In: Kaplan D, ed. The SAGE handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2004;73–92.

Chapter 2

Response Bias, Malingering, and Impression Management

Edward Helmes¹, Ronald R. Holden² and Matthias Ziegler³,    ¹James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia,    ²Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada,    ³Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany

Assessing a wide array of human characteristics using self-report questionnaires has been a successful item in the toolkit of many psychologists and other social scientists. However, the story itself is not one of successes only. Criticism against the use of questionnaires is as old and as common as the questionnaires themselves. The most recognized and most researched criticisms regard response biases, malingering, and impression management. The present chapter starts by shortly giving an overview of important concepts before providing descriptions of the most