Psychometrics and Allied Matters

An introduction to Psychometrics

One

Psychology is a diverse and exciting field. As pioneers in a relatively youthful science psychologists worldwide strive to improve every aspect of human life, from planning urban construction and zoning to human-computer interaction. Across all disciplines of psychology there is a common thread that 
unites all researchers and scientists in the field. This unifying discipline is psychometrics. 

Psychometrics, being concerned with the design and analysis of research and the measurement 
of human characteristics, has enjoyed a history of rapid growth and development since its origins 
with the work of Binet in France and Spearman in England, and the earlier efforts of Galton and his 
anthropometric laboratory. The field of psychometrics has been the genesis of intelligence testing, 
personality testing, and vocational testing, and has contributed to the emergence of new approaches and methods to psychological measurement based on the demands of society and the emergence of new technology. Psychometricians have also worked collaboratively with those in the field of statistics and quantitative methods to develop improved ways to organize and analyze data. Today all psychologists who conduct research or who develop psychological measures must be concerned with psychometric issues to ensure the validity of their work. These psychometric principles provide the backbone of psychology as an objective science. 

Despite the importance and widespread application of psychometric principles there are actually 
relatively few universities that offer a Ph.D. in Psychometrics and many undergraduate psychology 
majors who are not familiar with the work of psychometricians. This may be due in part to the under 
representation of psychometricians in academic settings as a result of the wide variety of competitive occupational opportunities open to graduates of psychometric programs. 

Of course the most obvious area in which psychometricians are employed is in psychological testing. Testing, whether it be of intelligence, personality, achievement, aptitudes, interests, or proficiency, is a widespread and important practice in our society. Testing is employed in schools, organizations, business, government, clinical settings and hospitals, as well as in the military. The impact of testing on individuals, organizations, and our culture is substantial and this reinforces the importance of high professional standards for the development, administration, and interpretation of tests. Due to the potential impact of testing on everyone's lives the practice of testing is also controversial and our society depends on the efforts of psychometricians to continue striving for more valid, reliable, and efficient tests. 

Psychometricians are not limited to working within the testing industry however. Many psychometricians are employed in industrial and organizational settings performing job analyses, consumer surveys, developing and validating personnel selection procedures, and performing market research. Positions in private and public consulting agencies, clinical research positions, and positions in managerial and administrative roles are also open to graduates of psychometric programs. Psychometricians can even find employment as researchers in fields only tangentially related to psychology, as statisticians, expert witnesses, and of course, in academic settings as well. 

The field of psychometrics has made and continues to make important contributions to psychology 
and to our society. Psychometric principles, applications, and issues continue to permeate every 
aspect of psychology and impact many peoples lives. The complex issues brought on by our rapidly changing society provide new challenges for psychometricians and new directions for the future 
of psychometrics. 

A Fordham University document

http://www.fordham.edu/aps/

An introduction to Psychometrics

Two

Psychometrics is a loosely used word that has created a whole industry of occupational testing 
and employee assessment. It covers a variety of tests that are used to assess the character 
strengths and weaknesses of a candidate, providing accurate profiles of their suitability for a position. 

What are psychometric tests?

Psychometric tests are often used by employers as part of their selection process. Basically, 
psychometric tests are tools for measuring the mind (‘metric’ = measure; ‘psycho’ = mind). There are two types of psychometric tests:

---Aptitude tests: which assess your abilities 
---Personality questionnaires: which help to build up a profile of your characteristics and personality 

How are they used by employers?

Employers can use these tests at any point during the selection process. Sometimes they are used 
at the beginning, as a way of screening out unsuitable candidates. Other employers prefer to use 
them towards the end of a selection process.

But don’t panic; psychometric tests are almost always used in conjunction with more traditional 
selection methods, such as a one-to-one interview. This means that even if you don't do brilliantly 
with psychometric tests, you can still impress the selectors in other ways.

Why are they used?

Many employers believe that psychometric tests give an accurate prediction of whether you are able to do the job and whether your character is suited to the work. Research shows that, statistically speaking, psychometric tests are one of the most reliable forms of revealing whether or not a candidate is suitable for a job.

How can I prepare for the tests?

Unlike GCSEs and ‘A’ levels, psychometric tests are not testing your knowledge or memory. They 
are testing your aptitude for various tasks or trying to reveal a more accurate assessment of your 
personality and temperament in the workplace. However, it does pay to familiarise yourself with 
typical questions, particularly in aptitude tests. Quite often a mediocre score can be vastly improved 
with practice. 

Aptitude tests

Also known as cognitive, ability or intelligence tests, these do not examine your general knowledge 
but test your critical reasoning skills under strictly timed conditions. There are many different types 
of tests depending on the type and level of job you’re applying for. However, a typical test might have three different sections each testing a different ability e.g. verbal reasoning, numerical reasoning and diagrammatic or spatial reasoning. Typically, the test would allow 30 minutes for 30 or more questions. 

Your score on these tests is compared to a ‘norm group’ which is usually made up of current 
jobholders who have done this test in the past. Employers can set their own standard in terms of 
how well you have to do in comparison with the ‘norm group’ in order to ‘pass’. But as a general 
rule of thumb you should try to complete 70 - 80 per cent of the questions and aim to correctly 
answer at least two thirds of those which you’ve answered.

Personality questionnaires

Even if you score well in aptitude tests, this doesn’t necessarily mean that you will be suited to 
a job. You can be good at something, but hate doing it! Success in a job also depends on your 
personal characteristics and qualities. Personality questionnaires can measure these. 

Questions focus on a variety of personality aspects such as:---

--How you relate to other people 
--Your work style 
--Your ability to deal with emotions (your own and other people’s) 
--Your motivation, determination and general outlook 
--Your ability to handle stressful situations 

Unlike aptitude tests, there are no right and wrong answers, although occasionally there is a 
time limit. Selectors will not be looking for a particular type of ‘profile’ but certain characteristics 
which are suited to the job.

How should I answer the questions?

Many employers want candidates with a balance of personal qualities: for example, being able to 
get on with people, take charge and organise, and being focused on achievement. But don’t try and second guess the answers that they want. There are often checks within questionnaires to detect 
whether you are giving a false picture of yourself. Corny as it sounds, it’s probably best just to be 
yourself: ultimately neither you nor the employer will be happy if the real you is not on display at work.

Further Reading :

http://www.iapsych.com/

Jungian Perceptions

According to Jung, some of us are extraverts (213).* They are "more influenced by their 
surroundings than by their own intentions" (302). The extravert is the person "who goes by the 
influence of the external world--say society or sense perceptions...." (303). He also claims that "the 
world in general, particularly America, is extraverted as hell, the introvert has no place, because he 
doesn't know that he beholds the world from within" (303). 

I take this to mean that extraverts way outnumber introverts. The introvert "goes by the subjective 
factor....he bases himself on the world from within...and...is always afraid of the external world....
He always has a resentment" (303). Jung knows these things because he is a careful observer of 
people. He only did one statistical study in his life and that was in astrology (315). In fact, Jung 
disdained statistics. "You can prove anything with statistics," he said (306). He preferred interpreting anecdotes.

Jung also claimed that "there is no such thing as a pure extravert or a pure introvert. Such a man 
would be in the lunatic asylum. They are only terms to designate a certain penchant, a certain 
tendency....the tendency to be more influenced by environmental factors, or more influenced by the 
subjective factor, that's all. There are people who are fairly well balanced and are just as much 
influenced from within as from without, or just as little" (304).

Furthermore, Jung claimed that thinking and feeling is another dichotomy to be used in psychological typing. "Thinking roughly speaking, tells you what [something] is. Feeling tells you whether it is agreeable or not, to be accepted or rejected " (306). The final dichotomy, according to Jung, is the sensation/intuition dichotomy. "Sensation tells you that there is something....And intuition--now there is a difficulty....There is something funny about intuition" (306). Even so, he defines intuition as "a perception via the unconscious" (307).

Jung claims that it took him a long time to discover that not everybody was a thinking (or intellectual) type like himself. He claims that he discovered there are "four aspects of conscious orientation" 
(341) or psychic functions. He claims he arrived at his typology "through the study of all sorts of 
human types" (342). These four orientations cover it all, he claims.

I came to the conclusion that there must be as many different ways of viewing the world [as there 
are psychological types]. The aspect of the world is not one, it is many--at least 16, and you can just as well say 360. You can increase the number of principles, but I found the most simple way is the 
way I told you, the division by four, the simple and natural division of a circle. I didn't know the 
symbolism then of this particular classification. Only when I studied the archetypes did I become 
aware that this is a very important archetypal pattern that plays an enormous role (342).

Jung's evidence is his clinical observations and is basically anecdotal. He talks about the extravert 
and the introvert as types. He also talks about the thinking type, the feeling type, the sensation type, 
and the intuition type. His evidence for his claims is not based upon any controlled studies. He said 
he "probably would have done them" if he had had the means (315). But as it was, he says, "I had to content myself with the observation of facts" (315).

Jungian anecdotes

To support his notion that "intuitive types very often do not perceive by their eyes or by their ears, 
they perceive by intuition" (308), Jung tells a story about a patient. She had a nine a.m. appointment and said to Jung: "you must have seen somebody at eight o'clock." She tells him she knows this 
because "I just had a hunch that there must have been a gentleman with you this morning." She 
knows it was a gentleman, she says, because "I just had the impression, the atmosphere was just 
like a gentleman was here." Jung seems uninterested in critically examining her claims. The anecdote seems to support his picture of the intuitive type. He doesn't consider that she may have seen the gentleman leave but failed to mention this to Jung, perhaps to impress him with her power of intuition. Jung notes that the room smelled of tobacco smoke and there was a half-smoked cigar in an ash tray "under her nose." Jung claims she didn't see it. He doesn't even consider that she may have seen it and smelled the stench of the cigar but did not call attention to it.

The reason scientists do controlled studies  rather than rely solely on their clinical observations and 
memories as Jung did is because it is easy to deceive ourselves  and fit the data  to our hypotheses and theories. Another Jungian anecdote will help exemplify this point. A male "sensation type" and a female "intuitive type" were in a boat on a lake. They were watching birds dive after fish. According to Jung, "they began to bet who would be the first to see the bird [when it emerged from the water]. 

Now you would think that the one who observes reality very carefully--the sensation type--would of 
course win out. Not at all. The woman won the bet completely. She was beating him on all points, 
because by intuition she knew it beforehand" (306-307, emphasis added). One couple, one try. 
That's it. No more evidence is needed. The truth is that Jung doesn't know any more than I do why 
the woman was better at the game than the man. Perhaps the man lost on purpose as part of a 
misguided plan to seduce the woman. Who knows? But Jung is clearly begging the question with 
this and most of his other "observations of facts," as he calls these stories.

Some of his anecdotes may have been entirely fictional For example, to support his notions 
of intuition and synchronicity , he says:

For instance, I speak of a red car and at that moment a red car comes along. I hadn't seen it, it was 
impossible because it was behind the building until just this moment when the red car appears. Now this seems mere chance. Yet the Rhine experiments on ESP  proves that these cases 
are not mere chance. Of course many of these things are occurrences to which we cannot apply 
such an argument, otherwise we would be superstitious. We can't say, "This car has appeared 
because some remarks had been made about a red car. It is a miracle that the red car appears." 
It is not, it is chance, just chance. But these "chances" happen more often than chance allows, and 
that shows there is something behind it (315, emphasis added).

Again, had Jung an understanding of statistics he would know that what he thinks happens more 
often than chance allows, in fact happens in accordance with what chance not only allows but also 
expects.

In short, Jung's typology is more philosophy than science. What is science, I would say, is bad 
science because he didn't do controlled studies and he relied too heavily upon his own insights 
and evaluations of what he observed. His terminology is imprecise and equivocal. Finally, there is 
no meaningful way to falsify his claims about psychological types. Contrary behaviors can be made 
to fit any type. Jung believed that an extravert would have an introverted unconscious and an 
introverted thinker might compensate by an extraverted feeling, etc., further complicating the 
typology (311). It would also make it impossible to test his claims about types. In short, his work is 
a towering example of confirmation bias,  self-deception , and wishful thinking. 

I think Jung realized the limitations of his work and I am not so sure that he would have approved 
of the MBTI®. "My scheme of typology," he noted, "is only a scheme of orientation. There is such 
a factor as introversion, there is such a factor as extraversion. The classification of individuals 
means nothing, nothing at all. It is only the instrumentarium for the practical psychologist to explain 
for instance, the husband to a wife or vice versa" (305).

However, his typology seems to imply that science is just a point of view and that using intuition 
is just as valid a way of seeing and understanding the world and ourselves, as careful observation 
under controlled conditions . Never mind that that is the only way to systematically minimize 
self-deception and identifying causes where there are none. Intuition may be a valid way of 
perceiving, but it is not a valid way of understanding the natural world.

Isabel Briggs Myers made similar mistakes.

In describing the writing of the Manual, she mentioned that she considered the criticisms a thinker 
would make, and then directed her own thinking to find an answer. An extravert to whom she was 
speaking said that if he wanted to know the criticisms of thinkers, he would not look into his own 
head. He would go find some thinkers, and ask them. Isabel looked startled, and then amused.

This anecdote typifies the dangers self-validation. To think that you can anticipate and characterize criticisms of your views fairly and accurately is arrogant and unintelligent, even if it is typical of your personality type. Others will see things you don't. It is too easy to create straw men instead of facing up to the strongest challenges that can be made against your position. It is not because of type that one should send out one's views for critical appraisal by others. It is the only way to be open-minded and complete in one's thinking. 

To suggest that only people of a certain type can be open-minded or concerned with completeness is to encourage sloppy and imprecise thinking.

Jung's philosophy seems to imply that "alternative" sciences are just as valid as the natural sciences that are taught in our universities. It implies a relativism which implies that nobody has a lock on truth about the world, that everybody sees the world the way they do because of their orientations and that no one way of seeing the world can claim to be superior to any other. I think this view is misleading at best and false at worst. We do have ways to weed out erroneous scientific views. We can't achieve infallibility but we can achieve reasonable probabilities in many of things that matter to us. Jung is correct as far as metaphysical beliefs are concerned, of course. But he does not seem interested in the distinction between scientific and metaphysical beliefs. His main concern was practical, not with theories in science or philosophy of science. A psychological type, he said, is "just a skeleton to which you have to add the flesh....It is a means to an end. It only makes sense, such a scheme [of types] when you deal with practical cases" (312).

Pre-Jungian typologies

Psychological typology did not originate with Jung, of course. Remember the four temperaments? Each of us, at one time, would have been considered to be either melancholic, sanguine, phlegmatic, or choleric. These classifications go back at least as far as the ancient physician Hippocrates  in the middle of the fifth century B.C.E. He explained the four temperaments in terms of dominant "humors" in the body. The melancholic is dominated by yellow "bile" in the kidneys; the sanguine by humors in the blood; the phlegmatic by phlegm; and the choleric by the black bile of the liver. Hippocrates was simply adding to the ancient Greek insight that all things reduce to earth, air, water, and fire. Each of the four elements had its dualities: hot/cold and dry/moist. A person's physical, psychological, and moral qualities could be easily understood by his temperament, his dominant 'humors,' the four basic elements, or whether he was hot and wet or cold and dry, etc. This ancient personality type-indicator "worked" for over one thousand years. Of course, cynics might attribute this success to confirmation bias . It also"put a heavy brake on physiological research since there were few phenomena for which the humors could not be made to yield some sort of easy explanation."

Today, most of us have abandoned Hippocrates' personality scheme because we do not find it to have any meaningful use. However, it must have been useful to have lasted for so long. How is the utility of such conceptual schemes measured? Perhaps by the same criteria we use today. How does the scheme help one understand oneself and others? Knowing these things can help us achieve our main goals in life and assist us in establishing good relationships with others. For example, a typical medieval choleric might see that his temperament suited him for work as a holy inquisitor. He could find the best path in life suited to him as he tried to achieve his main goal in life: the salvation of his eternal soul. Knowing his own temperament could help him plan his life. He might want to choose a cold and wet wife (a phlegmatic) as a counterbalance to his own hot and dry nature. He would know what obstacles he would have to overcome because of his intrinsic disposition, and he would be guided as to what occupation might suit him best. Knowing the four temperaments could help him understand others, even those unfortunate cold and dry melancholics on his rack or in his thumbscrews. In short, he could easily confirm that the theory "works."
the Myers-Briggs™ instrument 

Isabel Briggs Myers learned test construction by studying the personnel tests of a local bank. She worked up her inventories with the help of family and friends and she tested her early tests on thousands of schoolchildren in Pennsylvania. Her first longitudinal study was on medical students, who she followed up after 12 years and found that their occupations fit their types. She eventually became convinced that she knew what traits people in the health professions should have ("accurate perception and informed judgment"). She not only thought her tests could help select who would make good nurses and physicians, "she hoped the use of the MBTI in training physicians and nurses would lead to programs during medical school for increasing command of perception and judgment for all types, and for helping students choose specialties most suited to their gifts."

Others eventually helped her modify and develop her test, which was taken over by CPP in 1975. CPP has turned it into the instrument it is today. "I know intuitive types will have to change the MBTI," she said. "That's in their nature. But I do hope that before they change it, they will first try to understand what I did. I did have my reasons."

Personality profiles and astrological readings

As noted above, sixteen distinct personality profiles are generated by the Myers-BriggsTM instrument, based upon which side of the four scales one tends towards. Technically, the instrument is not supposed to be used to spew out personality profiles and pigeonhole people, but the temptation to do so seems irresistible. (See the profiles provided for students by St. Mary's College  in Australia, mentioned above.) Others have followed suit and providing personality tests and profiles has become a kind of entertainment on the Internet. Reading these profiles is like reading something from Omar the astrologer or Madame Sophie the psychic biorhythmist. Below is a somewhat lengthy Myers-Briggs™ profile. Judge for yourself. See how well the profile fits you. The experience is very reminiscent of James Randi's experiment with biorhythms  and Forer's cold reading of strangers.

You have a great deal of warmth, but may not show it until you know a person well. You keep your warm side inside, like a fur-lined coat. You are very faithful to duties and obligations related to ideas or people you care about. You take a very personal approach to life, judging everything by their inner ideals and personal values. 

You stick to your ideals with passionate conviction. Although your inner loyalties and ideals govern your life, you find these hard to talk about. Your deepest feelings are seldom expressed; their inner tenderness is masked by a quiet reserve. 

In everyday matters you are tolerant, open-minded, understanding, flexible, and adaptable. But if your inner loyalties are threatened, you will not give an inch. Except for your work's sake, you have little wish to impress or dominate. The people you prize the most are those who take the time to understand their values and the goals they are working toward. 

Your main interest lies in seeing the possibilities beyond what is present, obvious, or known. You are twice as good when working at a job you believe in, since your feeling puts added energy behind your efforts. You want your work to contribute to something that matters to you--human understanding, happiness, or health. You want to have a purpose beyond your paycheck, no matter how big the check. You are a perfectionist whenever you care deeply about something. 
You are curious about new ideas and tend to have insight and long-range vision. At times you are interested in books and language and are likely to have a gift of expression; with talent you may be an excellent writer. You can be ingenious and persuasive on the subject of your enthusiasms, which are quiet but deep-rooted. You are often attracted to counseling, teaching, literature, art, science, or psychology. 

You may feel such a contrast between your ideals and your actual accomplishments that you burden yourself with a sense of inadequacy. It is important for you to use your intuition to find ways to express your ideals; otherwise you will keep dreaming of the impossible and accomplish very little. If you find no channel for expressing your ideals, you may become overly sensitive and vulnerable, with dwindling confidence in life and in yourself.

I don't know about you, but this fits me pretty well....at least the parts that were right do...I've kind of forgotten the details of what I just typed and proofread, but I have a strong feeling it was pretty accurate. I especially like the fact that it ignored my dark side.

Here are some more excerpts from Myers-Briggs™ profiles. I think each of the following fits me. 
Do they fit you? 

---Serious, quiet, earn success by concentration and thoroughness. Practical, orderly, matter-of-fact, logical, realistic and dependable. See to it that everything is well organized. Take responsibility. Make up their own minds as to what should be accomplished and work toward it steadily, regardless of protests or distractions. 

--Usually have original minds and great drive for their own ideas and purposes. In fields that appeal to them, they have a fine power to organize a job and carry it through with or without help. Skeptical, critical, independent, determined, sometimes stubborn. Must learn to yield less important points in order to win the most important.

---Quiet and reserved. Especially enjoy theoretical or scientific pursuits. Like solving problems with logic and analysis. Usually interested mainly in ideas, with little liking for parties or small talk. Tend to have sharply defined interests. Need careers where some strong interest can be used and useful. 

The first profile is of an ISTJ (introversion, sensation, thinking, judgment), a.k.a. TheTrustee. These types comprise 6% of the population. The second is of INTJ (introversion, intuition, thinking judgment), a.k.a. The Scientist. These types make up 1% of the total population. The last is of an INTP (introversion, intuition, thinking, perception), a.k.a. The Architect. These types make up 1% of the population.

Psychological tests such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® seem to be little more than sophisticated parlor games. They will be validated by their seemingly good fit with the data, in the same way that astrologers and biorhythmists find predictive patterns fitting their readings and charts, i.e., by confirmation bias  and the ambiguity of basic terms and the Byzantine complexity that ultimately allows any kind of behavior to fit any personality type. The big difference, of course, is that psychological testing has the backing of a community of university statisticians to reinforce its notions. It is a cottage industry.

Uses of the MBTI®

The MBTI® is used in business to decide whom to hire and it is frequently used by managers as some sort of productivity tool. By getting people to "understand" themselves and their co-workers better by knowing their personality types, it is hoped that people will be more productive. As mentioned above, Isabel Myers thought her work could be used to develop medical school programs that would train the appropriate types in the appropriate ways. This idea, too, has caught on. Some have recommended changes in the "goals, activities, instructional methodologies, and types of instructional programs within technology education" based on the belief that instruction should "fit" the average (in the sense of 'mode', most frequently occurring type) personality type of technology students. Still others have recommended 16 different types of instruction, one for each of the 16 types, based on the notion that there must be 16 learning styles if there are 16 personality types. http://www.gsu.edu/~dschjb/wwwmbti.html 

Some think there are only nine basic personality types and follow the enneagram . As Jung said, there could be any number of types, even 360, if we wished. Who is right? Maybe they're both wrong. Perhaps we need only think of two types, those from Mars and those from Venus , as John Gray, Ph.D., claims. 

Note :
* The spelling of extravert is Jung's preference. The numbers in parentheses refer to the McGuire text, which is a collection of interviews with Jung. Most of the material quoted here is from the second (pp 296-315) or the fourth (pp 335-352) of four filmed interviews Jung did with Richard I. Evans of the University of Houston in 1957 in Zurich. 

-----------------
Compiled Texts