Projective Personality Techniques

Projective techniques are quite controversial in today’s society. While being a staple in the field of Psychology for many years, projective techniques are a very enthralling subject. Personality tests such as the Rorschach have made their way into movies, cartoons, and the media with some guest appearances. Some people think that these types of projective tests are pointless, while others see them as a window into a person’s soul. When examining the characteristics, uses, and forewarnings, one will be more informed on the projective personality techniques and exactly what projective techniques are doing in the field of Psychology.

As noted by Hogan, projective tests embody two main characteristics. First off, the test items are usually somewhat ambiguous. By saying that the test’s questions are ambiguous, it is meant that it is hard to tell what the test’s items are exactly trying to measure. The second characteristic of personality techniques is that they are in a constructed-response format. These two characteristics relate to the projective hypothesis because “if the stimulus for a response is ambiguous, then the response itself will be determined by the examinee’s personality dynamics” according to Hogan (521). Furthermore, with the constructed-response format, the test taker’s “response[s] will be formulated in terms of the person’s desires, fantasies, inclinations, fears, and motives” (521).

In regards to the uses of projective techniques, there are core two uses. Projective techniques are used for “assessment of individual cases in clinical, counseling, and school psychology.” Besides being used in clinical, counseling, and school psychology, projective techniques are also utilized in research. There are certain indicators that prompt the use of personality tests. For example, if a child or adult has a low reading ability, a projective test is usually preferred to written test. A projective test would not require any reading since most personality tests are verbal. Also, it is harder to “fake good” or “fake bad” with personality tests because of the ambiguity of the stimuli. And thirdly, projective tests may be beneficial for a therapist in judging a client’s initial basis (524).

Furthermore, for example, with an intelligence test, there is a specific set of rules that must be followed by a psychologist when administering a personality test to a patient or client. So, when someone else looks at the results of a non-personality test like an Intelligence test for example, they have a good idea of what was asked on the test, that the entire test was completed, and that the test was scored properly. With a personality test such at the Thematic Apperception Test, not every single card is used and instruction for the test’s administration is very simplistic. So unlike an intelligence test, it would be hard for someone who did not administer the test to exactly know the results and what was done within the test period. The same goes for the Rorschach inkblot test with the numerous numbers of cards and only a few being selected for the patient.

Personally, I am one that believes in projective personality techniques. I think that the free-response format allows a psychologist to truly understand a person. Knowing whether a person views a neutral picture of a situation as evil and making up a story behind it, there is no other test that can create that connection and deep expression of what they are thinking and feeling. When I am done with graduate school and receive my PSY.D or PH.D, I know that these are definitely tools that I am going to utilize in my therapy practices.

So in conclusion, after going through the characteristics, uses, and forewarnings of projective personality techniques, I have come to the conclusion that they are an important asset to any Psychologist for school, clinical, and counseling. While the test questions are ambiguous, I still feel that the personality test will give me a better understanding of my patient than a written test. Especially if I am counseling children, I think that a personality test would be more appropriate to start off and get to know my client better. Even though a test like the Rorschach is not being taught in schools as a valuable tool, I believe that the uses are as important as the Thematic Apperception Test. Ambiguously open-ended tests (like the Rorschach and Thematic Apperception Test) let a client splash their personality all over the pages and let the words flow from their subconscious. I am glad a facility like Roosevelt contains some psychology staff members that still find it pertinent to teach tests such as the Rorschach to future generations of Psychologist.

Personality Tests: Content, Criterion-Keying, Factor Analysis, and Theory Driven

An individual’s personality is as complex and personal as a fingerprint; yet there are personality tests out there nowadays that allow insight into an individual’s personality and / or emotional depths. In regards to personality, there are four major types of methods that a test developer can choose from when deciding what type of test he / she would like to construct. The tests options consist of content method, criterion-keying, factor analysis, and theory driven with each test having its own strengths and weaknesses.

First off, content method is a popular form of personality tests. An example of a content method personality test that might be given to patients during their therapy session is the Woodworth Personal Data Sheet. For example, if a person is using a content method test that is supposed to be measuring introversion, then the set of questions within the test would be dealing with how the individual relates to others. By the way a person answers his / her questions, the individual’s score can give an insight into his / her personality and tell if one of his / her traits is introversion or extraversion. On the plus side, the content method is simple and defines clearly what the test is seeking to evaluate. It is also easy to generate items using this approach and has good validity. However, some of the weaknesses of using the content method are that the responses are subject to distortion and, according to Hogan, one is able to “fake good” or “fake bad” when an individual taking the test knows what is being gauged (459).

Another test that is used in measuring personality is called criterion-keying. Criterion-keying uses the approach of “discrimination” (459). Two examples of this approach are the MMPI and the Strong Interest Inventory. Two well defined groups are used in the criterion-keying method; one group is deemed the “normal” group and the other is deemed the “criterion” group. The criterion group is distinctly defined as having a specific condition. Like the content method, the criterion-keying approach’s strength is that it is direct and simplistic. Another plus is that this approach also promotes the possibility of fresh research applications. On the other hand, according to Hogan, three of the test’s drawbacks are (a) “it’s extreme atheoretical orientation limits the generalizability of score interpretation,” (b) criterion-keying can only be used when well-defined criterion groups are present, (c) interpretation can be inaccurate (461).

Besides content method and criterion-keying, there is another personality test type that is known as factor analysis; this type of personality test, according to Hogan, “bring[s] order to an undifferentiated mass of items and responses” (462). Also like the criterion-keying approach, factor analysis also produces a hefty amount of research. Conversely, the first weakness of factor analysis is that much of the test’s validity is based on the original “pool of items” (462). In addition to the items, there are numerous disputes among professionals about the correctness of the diverse methodologies. Then there is the point that most of the final results of factor analysis tests are fluid versus definitive. A great example of factor analysis is the NEO Personality Inventory.

And lastly, the fourth and final major personality test is known as theory-driven. Hogan explains that “the test developer adopts a particular theory about the human personality, the build test items to reflect [his / her] theory” (463). This theory can be broad or can be narrow depending on the test developer and how much he / she wants to cover within his / her theory. One advantage of the theory-driven approach is that it supplies an “operational definition” which encourages further research on the matter which can lead to better development of the test (463). Two core shortcomings of the theory-driven approach are the theory’s validity and how soundly the test mirrors the test developer’s theory.

All in all, by taking a look at content method, criterion-keying, factor analysis, and theory-driven personality tests, it is noted that each test has its own strengths and weaknesses. When designing a test, a test developer must choose which personality test method is right for them. In my opinion, there is not one correct or an incorrect method to choose. Each method, whether it is content method, criterion-keying, factor analysis, or theory-driven, has its own benefits and detriments. A test developer would just have to choose the method that would work best with his / her ideas and aspirations for what he / she envisions their test being.