Critical Evaluation of Two Tests of Personality and Intelligence

This paper critically evaluates the effectiveness of two tests of personality and intelligence, analyzing the methods used, validity and reliability of data collected, and psychometric properties in test construction. The two tests evaluated are “Relations of emotional intelligence with gender-linked personality: Implications for a refinement of EI constructs” and “Personality in Situations: Going beyond the OCEAN and Introducing the Situation Five”. The paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each test and provides insights into the limitations of personality and intelligence tests in general.

Critically evaluate the effectiveness of two
different tests of personality or intelligence

Critical evaluation of the effectiveness of two different tests of personality or
intelligence
The main purpose of the current research paper is to critically evaluate as well as
analyse the overall effectiveness of the two scales that is “Relations of emotional intelligence
with gender-linked personality: Implications for a refinement of EI constructs” and
“Personality in Situations: Going beyond the OCEAN and Introducing the Situation Five”.
This research paper is to pinpoint the methods being utilized in both the papers. The Selected
paper in this work is also going to be critiqued from different perspectives such as methods
being utilized, validity and reliability of data collected and psychometric properties in the test
construction. In other words, it simply means assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the
entitlements the authors mark in relation with their psychological instruments. Focusing in
relation with the first article that is “Relations of emotional intelligence with gender-linked
personality: Implications for a refinement of EI constructs”, it is being conducted by four
authors and was being done to examine the association amid trait and ability emotional
intelligence with gender-linked personality (GLP) dimensions of agency as well as
communion (Petrides, Mason & Sevdalis, 2018). The research took place in at a large
western Canadian university. The participants were the students who came from different
academic disciplines. The participants were required to complete self-report measures of
traits emotional intelligence, gender-linked personality dimensions and the Big Five. All the
participants were being asked to take the MSCEIT and all of them accomplished all
procedures namelessly online. Speaking about the trait and ability emotional intelligence
psychological instruments being utilized by the authors, both the instruments can be
distinguished based on the approaches of measurements being utilized for operationalizing
them. Trait EI or in other words trait emotional self-efficacy is concerned in regards with the
emotion related self-perception which is calculated through self-report. On the other hand, the
ability EI or in other words or cognitive-emotional ability efficacy is concerned in regards
with emotions related to reasoning capabilities which is calculated through performance tests.
The author has utilized MSCEIT version for the purpose of measuring the ability of the
participants for performing the tasks and solving issues related to emotions. The trait EI is
being referred as an assemblage of self-perception positioned at the inferior levels of
personality hierarchies while the ability EI is referred as the capability to observe as well as
express emotions and integrating the same in thought, comprehending the reason with
emotion in self and others (Janda, 2016). The correlation amid the measures of trait EI and
1

ability EI is consistently low which supports the explicit difference amid the two scales.
Moving further, the MSCEIT (Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test. The
operationalization of ability EI is challenging due to the fact of subjectivity of emotional
experience. The main issue with the MSCEIT approach or test is that it is majorly utilized for
testing the ability emotional intelligence and is not going to measure any intelligible
measurement of psychological interest. The approach being taken by the authors such as trait
EI reflects the fact that the different ideas which have been conversed in the literatures under
the emotional inelegance consistently designate variations of personality traits, for example
adaptableness, emotive expression, understanding and self-control. All these are
psychometrically unrelated to mental capability. Thus, it is quite clear that the chosen
framework by the authors in which the case of models are operationalized through self-report
questionnaires, the claim by the authors is irrational. In case of models which are
operationalized through performance tests, the claim by the authors might have unacceptable
(Van Kampen, 2017).
Articulating in regards with the gender-linked personality (GLP) dimensions, the
authors have made use of Personal Attributes Questionnaire for measuring activity and
empathy. The use of this method by the author has some weaknesses as through these testing
point it is quite possible for the students or participants to fake their responses on the test for
giving enhanced response that performance of a student is not essentially relied on the
personality of individual. On the other hand, from only a single test, complexities of the
personalities of individual cannot be tested briefly. Because of this fact, there has been
question about the accuracy as well as reliability of the overall process. The other method
being used by the authors is big five. In this, the author intends to measure neuroticism,
extraversion, directness, sociability and thoroughness with the Big Five Inventory. There is
no denying the author's subject knowledge but it is important for the authors to know that
traits keeps on changing and they are not fixed (Williams & et.al, 2019). In addition to this,
these personality tests being used are not considered as effective tools for examining the
personality of the participants because of the probability for biased methods of answering and
altering of personalities with the passage of time. Personalities in fact are very complex and
this cannot be adequately scrutinized on the basis of single test alone.
On the other hand, the second article that is “Personality in Situations: Going beyond
the OCEAN and Introducing the Situation Five” is being conducted by three authors
underwrites numerous features to the research on person-situation transactions. In order to
construct the final assessment tool, the author has constructed a big Five in Psychological
2

Situations (B5PS) and situation five taxonomies. Focusing in relation with the big five
taxonomy being utilized by the author it includes five dimensions that is neuroticism,
extraversion, directness, sociability and thoroughness (Sherman & et.al, 2015). This model is
universal and thus, utilization of this model by the authors has clearly helped the researchers
in examining the personalities of the participants. Additionally, the situation five taxonomy
being used by the authors are too broad, which is being regarded as the greatest strength of
this method but at the same time it also makes the subject to be tested inaccurate. Moreover,
the taxonomies being adopted by the researchers in the present article are only descriptive in
nature which designates the personality effectively. However, it does not say anything in
regards with the reason behind the existence of the personality. In the present world wherein
improvement in self is apparently considered as a world-wide objective, the big five and
situation five test lacks the capability of answering the crucial questions that is why the
person or individual is high in neuroticism or openness and what are the manners through
which they can alter this.
Underpinning the discussion further, for testing the situation five and big five model,
the authors in the present article has made use of different statistical analysis such as
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). All these analysis
ignores the other personality traits as the author does not want to measure other personalities
or characters like spirituality and religiosity. In addition to this, for measuring the reliability
of the methods being utilized by the author consistency in the outcomes is the best measure
when it is all about physiological testing process (Yang, Read & Miller, 2016). The
administered test in the current article has produced a reliable outcomes and thus, it is taken
into account as reliable in the least as the personality test are meant to evaluate the long
lasting behavioural as well as emotional aspects of the participants which most of the time
does not alter within diminutive time period. For instance, when it is about examining the
reliability of the personality test, one of the best manner of conducting this is to measure
whether it is founded on statistical consistency of the obtained outcomes. The famous and
permanent procedure is the test-retest approach. This includes giving an established research
subjects similar kind of test two times or may be three times for measuring the consistency of
the obtained outcomes. Seeking help from this method, deviation in the consistency while
measuring the responses of the same participant can be easily witnessed. Through making
comparison of the outcomes being created by the research subjects on one test to the one
produced on the other test and the final outcome are shoring same kind of scores, which
signifies that both the scales are equal in content.
3

On the basis of the information as well as arguments been presented within this
current research project it can be attributed that different personality and intelligence tests
cannot be used or adopted as effective approach of personality examination. This is because
of the fact that they possess the probability for biased methods of responding (Reddock,
Biderman & Nguyen, 2019). In addition to this, it also includes probabilities of personalities
altering with the passage of time and the reality that the personalities themselves are being
regarded as complex attributes which ca not be evaluated satisfactorily on the basis of a
solitary test alone. Other than this, it also needs to be noted carefully that personality and
intelligence tests themselves should not be instantaneously reduced. The current paper has
also thrown light on the reliability as well as validity of the methods as well as processes
being used by the authors (Jinyan & et.al, 2014). Even the process by which these methods
can be used as a method of effective personality analysis, nonetheless the outcomes cannot be
used as a basic approach of analysing the personality trait of an individual. Relatively, they
will be exploited as a secondary approach of analysis with real review of the performance
being the optimal manner of truly analysing the manner an individual is performing.
4

REFERENCES
Books and journals
Janda, L.H. (2016). The Psychologist’s Book of Personality Tests: 24 Revealing Tests to
Identify and Overcome Your Personal Barriers to a Better Life. John Wiley & Sons.
Jinyan, F., Dingguo, G., Carroll, S.A., Lopez, F.J., Tian, T., & Hui, M. (2014). Testing the
Efficacy of a New Procedure for Reducing Faking on Personality Tests Within
Selection Contexts. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 866-880.
Petrides, K.V., Mason, M., & Sevdalis, N. (2018). Preliminary validation of the construct of
trait social intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(6), 874–877.
Reddock, C.M., Biderman, M.D., & Nguyen, N.T. (2019). The Relationship of Reliability
and Validity of Personality Tests to Frame-of-Reference Instructions and Within-
Person Inconsistency. International Journal Of Selection & Assessment, 19(2), 119-
131.
Sherman, R. A., Rauthmann, J.F., Brown, N. A., Serfass, D.G., & Jones, A.B. (2015). The
independent effects of personality and situations on real-time expressions of behavior
and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 872–888.
Van Kampen, D. (2017). The 5-Dimensional Personality Test (5DPT): Relationships With
Two Lexically Based Instruments and the Validation of the Absorption Scale. Journal
Of Personality Assessment, 94(1), 92-101.
Williams, C., Daley, D., Burnside, E., & Hammond-Rowley, S. (2019). Measuring emotional
intelligence in preadolescence. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(4), 316–320.
Yang, Y., Read, S.J., & Miller, L.C. (2016). A taxonomy of situations from Chinese idioms.
Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 750–778.
5