Out of all the types of assessments that we have studied so
far, I was probably most familiar with personality assessments, which we read
about this week. I have taken the MBTI
several times during my life, and have found that my resulting personality type
was slightly different each time I took the test. Drummond and Jones (2010) define personality
as “the reasonably stable patterns of thoughts, emotions, and behavior that
distinguish one person from another” (p. 248).
I’ve found that as I’ve matured, I’ve noticed myself becoming more of a “balanced”
person on a couple of the MBTI scales.
For instance, in college, there was a period of time when I just couldn’t
stand being alone. I had to be around
other people and I became restless when left to myself for too long. Since then, I’ve found myself appreciating
alone-time more frequently. I wouldn’t
say that I prefer being alone to being with others, but I’ve found the value of
being alone occasionally. So, overall, I
would say that I am still an extrovert, but I think as I’ve aged I’ve inched a
bit closer to the introvert-side of the continuum. However, there is another explanation for the
fluctuating test scores I’ve seen.
Perhaps as I’ve aged my personality hasn’t really changed, but I’ve
become more aware of who I actually am and how I function. This theory probably fits better with what we
know about human development and the typological theories of Carl Jung which
provide the backbone for the MBTI. Also,
I think that whatever things I have been experiencing during the times when I
have taken the MBTI have made me more aware of certain characteristics that I
possess, and that is probably another reason for score fluctuation.
Other factors to
consider when discussing personality assessments are validity and reliability. Drummond and Jones are quick to point out
that personality assessments “are part of the affective domain, and are thus
not as valid and reliable as most of the aptitude and achievement tests that
make up the cognitive domain” (p. 247). Personality assessments, more than other types
of assessments, often require test takers to complete “objective” tests based
on their own opinions, which are definitely more subjective than
objective. One thing that I’ve pointed
out to students who I’ve administered personality and other subjective
identity-formation assessments to is that with these assessments, a person “gets
out whatever they put in.” One thing
that I found to be helpful when doing this type of assessment on myself in the
past was to have a very close friend fill out the assessments as if she were me
and to compare our answers. I did the
same thing for her. What we found was
that we often selected responses for each other that were pretty similar to
what we had selected for ourselves.
There were some items that my friend responded to for me differently,
and the way she responded on those items were often responses that I had
strongly considered when filling out the assessment for myself. It was helpful for me to not only see who I
think I am, but how others perceive me.
Likewise, the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO PI-R) has both a
self-report form and an observer report form (Drummond & Jones, 2010). This is an assessment that I had not heard of
before reading the chapter from Drummond and Jones this week, but it seems like
something that I might like to experiment with when working with students in
the future.
Reference
Drummond, R.J.
& Jones, K. (2010). Assessment
procedures for counselors and helping professionals ( 7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
No comments:
Post a Comment