Critique of Personality and Intelligence Measures

This article provides a critique of personality and intelligence measures, discussing the history and development of intelligence and personality tests. It explores the scores and evaluation of the Big Five personality test and Multiple Intelligences test.

Running head: PSYCHOLOGY
CRITIQUE OF PERSONALITY AND INTELLIGENCE MEASURES
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1PSYCHOLOGY
Title: Critique of Personality and Intelligence Measures
Introduction:
Research studies suggest that the history of human intelligence has evolved gradually
over the years and research is still going on for the evaluation of the best method which could
help in measuring human intelligence (Rothe, 2017). The term ‘Intelligence Quotient’ was
propounded by William Stern in the early 1990S who was a German psychologist. The term
was used by Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon who first published the modern intelligence
test based on the Binet-Simon intelligence scale (Vernon, 2014). On account of the
convenience to use the scale, the scale was widely across many countries. Lewis Terman a
renowned psychologist from the Stanford University was the first to publish an IQ test report
using the Stanford-Binet test. David Wechsler in the year 1939 developed the first
intelligence test for an adult population which was known as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale or the WAIS. After the publication of the WAIS scale for adults, the WISC or the
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for children was also published (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furham,
2014). The scales presented a separate group of sub scores for the verbal IQ as well as the
performance IQ and were a refined version of the Stanford-Binet scale. In addition to this, it
should also be noted in this regard that the Wechsler scale was the first intelligence scale that
plotted the standard scores on a standard bell curve. Research studies define the bell curve as
a statistical curve that comprises of equal number of scores on either side of the average, also
most scores are around the average and some scores are beyond the average (Mayer et al.,
2016; Rothe, 2017). It should be noted in this context that the modern IQ tests are based on
mathematical score that is represented on a bell curve. Most of the score fall under the
average score range whereas a small proportion of the scores fall at points that are either
higher or lower than the average scores (Mayer et al., 2016). The theory of General
intelligence factor was developed by Charles Spearman who believed that disparate cognitive

2PSYCHOLOGY
tasks helped in evaluating a single intelligence factor (Eysenck, 2017). Further, the culture-
fair tests was developed by Raymond B. Cattell who presented an argument that general
intelligence existed in two parts that included the fluid intelligence and the crystallized
intelligence (Downey et al., 2014). In addition to this, the IQ test developed by Cattell helped
in differentiating the intelligence quotient of people from the underlying environmental and
genetic factors (Eysenck, 2017). Raven’s Progressive Matrices is another type of culture fair
test that is widely used in educational setting so as to measure the reasoning ability of
individuals associated with general intelligence (Downey et al., 2014). In addition to this, the
‘Flynn effect’ was developed by Jim Flynn who recalibrated the IQ score every few years in
order to maintain the average score at 100 so as to avoid disparity in intelligence scores
(Zuffiano et al., 2013).
As much as intelligence quotient analysis has been given importance to analyse the
human psychology and behaviour, the personality testing and analysis has also evolved. The
first theories of personality testing was propounded in the 19th century by psychologist
Wilhelm Wundt who first suggested that an individual’s personality was closely linked to his
behaviour and perception. The 20th century marked the year of significant psychological
theories propounded by Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud and Eduard Spranger (Zuffiano et al.,
2013). The Woodworth Personal data sheet was developed in the year 1919 which marked
the first modern personality test. The Rorschach inblot test was introduced in the year 1921
(Zuffiano et al., 2013). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test that was based on Carl Jung’s
personality theories was published in the year 1962 and the test remains the most popular one
at present times (Mayer et al., 2016). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test helps in
evaluating the different psychological types on the basis of random variations present in the
behaviour on the parameters of independent perception and judgement. The test is effective to
differentiate between 16 personality types (Mayer et al., 2016). On the other hand the

3PSYCHOLOGY
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory helps in the evaluation of patient’s
psychological problems and is differentiated into 10 clinical subscales with 4 validity scales
(Van der Linden et al., 2017). On the other hand, the Five Factor Model helps in the
identification of five basic aspects that constitute human personalities and includes the
parameters of openness, consciousness, extroversion, neuroticism and agreeableness (Kline,
2013; Clayton & Myers, 2015).
Considering the development across the domain of intelligence and personality tests,
this paper intends to present a critique and reflection on my personal strengths, weaknesses
and personality type on the basis of the Big Five Project personality test and Multiple
Intelligences for Adult Literacy and Education.
Scores:
Research studies suggest that the Big Five or the Five Factor Model intends to
identify the five basic aspects that form the basis of human personality (Sanchez-Alvarez et
al., 2016; Qualls, 2014; Lindsay & Norman, 2013). These five factors comprise of factors
such as openness, consciousness, agreeableness and neuroticism. The questionnaire
comprises a total of 45 questions where the responses are to be marked within a scale of 1-5
with 1 indicating strongly disagree and 5 indicting strongly disagree (Kline, 2017). The test
was taken by me and my closest friend and this segment would present a critical synthesis
and discussion on the results of the personality test.
The general scores for me suggested that I was moderately open to new experiences,
moderately organized, was extremely extroverted as per my social life, was assertive and was
nervous and impulsive in general. On the contrary, the overall scores for my friend suggested
that he was also moderately open to new experiences, was moderately disorganized, was an

4PSYCHOLOGY
extrovert in terms of social life, was moderately assertive and was extremely nervous in terms
of general personality perception.
Fig: personality score of me and my friend
On a broader note, the scores across the parameter of open-mindedness was similar
for me as well as my friend. Both of us scored 38 percentile which suggests that both of us
possess a conventional thought process. As stated by Zuffiano et al. (2013), lower scores,
reflect a personality that is more conventional, down to earth and uncreative and possesses
narrow interests. Considering the consciousness domain, I scored 53 percentile, whereas my
friend scored 44 percentile. The interpretation of the score suggests that as an individual I am
neither disorganized nor organized. As suggested by Sánchez-Álvarez et al. (2016), higher
scores across this parameter indicated a personality that is reliable, self-disciplines, careful
and well organized. On the other hand, lower scores indicate a personality that is
disorganized, negligent and undependable. My friend scored 44 percentile, which also
indicates that he is neither disorganized nor organized. My scores across the parameter of
extraversion was equivalent to 80 percentile and my friend’s score was equivalent to 75

5PSYCHOLOGY
percentile. The interpretation of my score suggested that my personality type could be
defined as extremely outgoing, social and energetic. On the other hand, the interpretation for
my friend suggested that he was comparatively social and not as outgoing as me but liked the
company of others. It should be noted in this context that higher scores across this domain
suggested that the personality type could be defined as sociable, friendly, fun-loving and at
the same time talkative. On the other hand, lower scores revealed that the personality was
more of an introvert nature, reserved, quiet and inhibited. In this case, both the scores for me
as well as my friend suggested that we liked to socialize.
Considering the parameter of agreeableness, my score was equivalent to 24 percentile,
whereas my fiends score was equivalent to 44. The interpretation for my score suggested that
I could conveniently express my irritation and disagreement with others. On the other hand,
my friends score suggested that he followed a diplomatic perspective and was neither irritated
easily nor forgave easily. High scores across this parameter reveal a good nature which is
enriched with elements of sympathy, forgiveness and courteousness. On the other hand,
lower scores reveal a personality that is critical, rude and at the same time callous.
The last parameter comprised of evaluating the scores across the domain of negative
emotionality. I scored 79 percentile while my friend’s score was equivalent to 93 percentile.
The interpretation for my score suggested that I had a tendency to become anxious or
nervous. On the other hand, my friend’s score suggested that he was an anxious person in
generally and worried a lot about things in general. It should be crucially noted in this context
that high scores across this domain suggest a personality that is nervous, high-strung and
unsure and at the same time panic stricken. On the other hand, lower scores reveal a
personality that is relaxed, secure and secure. Typically the percentile scores across each
domain reveal the personality type compared to the personality type of a group of people who
has also taken the personality test and thus, it can be said that the results present an overview

6PSYCHOLOGY
about the individual personality type when compared to a group of people who also took the
similar personality test.
The Multiple Intelligences for Adult Literacy and Adult Education helps in the
identification of the personality strengths that determine an individual’s intelligence level.
After the completion of the test, my top three intelligence strengths were identifies as social
skills, sense of music and language skills. On the other hand my scores with respect to
intrapersonal skills was 3.43, naturalist intelligence was 3.43, spatial reasoning was 3.14,
body movement was 2.71 and logic/ Math was 1.71. I would need to work on these areas in
order to improve my analytic and reasoning skills. My score was marked 4.14 out of 5 in
terms of social skills. Further, I scored 4 out of 5 in the area of sense of music and 3.57 out of
5 in terms of language skills. The interpretation of the score across the social skills suggested
that my social interaction ability was my greatest strength. It further revealed that I was able
to develop ideas and was able to talk and was extremely efficient while managing a group. In
other words, I could be considered proficient for activities such as group discussions or team
projects. According to Thurstone (2013), social interaction ability can be defined as a key
skill that determines effective leadership skills which helps in managing crisis situation and
conflicts. In addition to this, the scores also revealed that I had a significant knowledge about
sound and rhythm and that I memorized things better when I related to the tune and rhythm of
the sound or the voice. Research studies that relating to a particular rhythm or song helped in
memorizing learning materials better which could enhance academic performance. In
addition to this, research studies also suggest that individuals with better rhythm and tune
sense were often brilliant observers and possessed an optimistic perspective towards life. My
third strength based skill was evaluated as language skills and the results revealed that I
enjoyed reading and learning new words. I critically enjoyed involving in activities such as
reading a poetry or a drama. Research studies mention that reading enhanced and improved

7PSYCHOLOGY
the vocabulary which helps in strengthening effective communication skills (Boyd &
Pennebaker, 2017; Cumming, 2013).
Fig: Comparison of big five personality scores

8PSYCHOLOGY
Fig: Evaluation of three key strengths

9PSYCHOLOGY
Evaluation and Reflection:
Therefore, on the basis of the personality test and the intelligence test results, I feel I
have unravelled critical aspects about my personality which was not known to me before. I
think that I have been able to ideally identify my personality strengths and weaknesses and at
the same time have also identified certain areas where I could work in order to improve my
holistic personality so as to enhance personal development. In addition to this, the
comparison of the scores with my friend helped in analysing my personality traits with
respect to a different personality and this made me appreciate the existing differences
between two different personalities.
Upon critically evaluating and reflecting on the scores of the big five personality test,
I realized that I am more of a conserved person who is not open to new ideas. In this case, I
could find a resemblance with my friend, however, this could be identified as a personality
flaw as being open to new ideas help in appreciating individual differences and at the same
time help in emanating cultural competence. On the other hand, possessing a conservative
mind set often confines the willingness to appreciate individual differences in terms of
cultural or ethnic diversity and this subsequently leads to cultural incompetence (Lievens &
Chan, 2017). Also, another personality weakness that I evaluated was my agreeableness to
other’s opinion. The big five personality test scores suggested that I found it difficult to
accept the difference in opinions and was extremely critical of what others had to say. On the
contrary, my friend’s scores suggested that he was more of a diplomat. Research studies state
that being too critical of other’s opinions lead to poor tolerance to critique which ultimately
leads to poor confidence outcome. Therefore, I would need to work on my tolerance level so
as to acknowledge and appreciate difference in opinion. This would assist me with my career

10PSYCHOLOGY
growth and at the same time ensure the fact that I am an active listener and I am able to
partner effectively with people while involving in a critical decision making process. Also,
another personality weakness that I identified was my tendency to become anxious and
nervous easily. At the same time, my friend’s score also revealed that he was extremely
anxious and worried about things in general. As stated by Funder (2015), nervousness and
anxiety as a personality trait reveals poor confidence levels and low self-esteem. I would
need to work on these areas so as to construct a strong personality that could effectively lead
a team of professionals in future. Research studies mention that an efficient leader must be
confident and at the same time must possess a charming and confident personality so as to
motivate the team of professionals that is being led and managed by him.
Upon reflecting upon the scores obtained in the general intelligence test, I realized
that my top three skills are my ability to socialize, my sense of music and my interest in
language. The three skills can be developed through a number of activities which would
significantly contribute to my personality development and at the same time would ensure
complete utilization of the personality strengths. In order to utilize my social skills I could
participate in group activities or engage in activities such as group activities or conduct an
interview with a family member. The rationale for engaging in these activities can be
mentioned as improving on my communication skills so as enhance my ability to manage a
group in future. Also, I could utilize my interest and passion for music by involving in
activities such as recite a poem with perfect rhythm and expressions. This would help me in
improving on my pronunciation and speech and ensure that I am able to communicate in an
accurate and precise manner. In addition to this, I could also listen to particular tune while
memorising a theory or a formula. Research studies suggest that soft tune and rhythmic beat
help in memorising concepts better. Further, research studies also suggest that rhythm and
tune helps in improving concentration and promotes positive learning outcome (Revelle &

11PSYCHOLOGY
Wilt, 2013; Curtis et al., 2015). The third personality strength that I identified for myself
comprised of my language skills. The interpretation of the score suggested that I liked to
engage in reading and learning and was fascinated by activities such as story-telling. Also,
the scores suggested that I was extremely motivated with books, records, dramas as well as
opportunities for creative writing. Research studies mention that an effective grasp on
vocabulary and language enhanced speech and communication ability. In order to enhance
my language strengths I could engage in activities such as reading aloud poetries and dramas.
In addition to this, I could engage myself in writing down reflective journals. This would help
me in building up my vocabulary and at the same time also provide mean opportunity to
effectively use the new words that I learn. In addition to this a strong vocabulary would help
me in expressing better and at the same time help me in read and appreciate abstract ideas. As
of now I have refrained from reading abstract ideas as on most occasions, I have not been
able to comprehend the meaning of the complex phrases used in abstract ideas. However, on
building a strong vocabulary I would be able to appreciate abstract ideas and evolve as a
person. At the same time I would also be able to appreciate different genres of literature and
not remain confined to a single genre. Also, a strong vocabulary would also boost my
academic interest to pursue research in humanities which would give me an exposure to
classic theories and literatures. This would further help me in evolving academically and
ensure personal development.
Therefore, to conclude, it should be mentioned that personality traits and preferences
are a reflection of the holistic personality of an individual. Conducting a personality helps in
critically identifying and appreciating the existing strengths and weaknesses inherent within a
personality which could be successfully polished in order to evolve as a strong personality.
Apart from ensuring personal development, personality tests also help in acknowledging the

12PSYCHOLOGY
diverse personality types of other individuals which subsequently fosters increased
competence and tolerance towards other personalities.

13PSYCHOLOGY
References:
Boyd, R. L., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2017). Language-based personality: a new approach to
personality in a digital world. Current opinion in behavioral sciences, 18, 63-68.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2014). Personality and intellectual competence.
Psychology Press.
Clayton, S., & Myers, G. (2015). Conservation psychology: Understanding and promoting
human care for nature. John Wiley & Sons.
Cumming, A. (2013). Multiple dimensions of academic language and literacy
development. Language Learning, 63, 130-152.
Curtis, R. G., Windsor, T. D., & Soubelet, A. (2015). The relationship between Big-5
personality traits and cognitive ability in older adults–a review. Aging,
Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 22(1), 42-71.
Downey, L. A., Lomas, J., Billings, C., Hansen, K., & Stough, C. (2014). Scholastic success:
Fluid intelligence, personality, and emotional intelligence. Canadian Journal of
School Psychology, 29(1), 40-53.
Eysenck, H. (2017). The biological basis of personality. Routledge.P.52
Funder, D. C. (2015). The personality puzzle: seventh international student edition. WW
Norton & Company.
Kline, P. (2013). Intelligence: The psychometric view. Routledge.p.66
LIEVENS, F. R. O., & Chan, D. (2017). Practical intelligence, emotional intelligence, and
social intelligence.

14PSYCHOLOGY
Lindsay, P. H., & Norman, D. A. (2013). Human information processing: An introduction to
psychology. Academic press.
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2016). The ability model of emotional
intelligence: Principles and updates. Emotion Review, 8(4), 290-300.
Qualls, C. D. (2014). Public and personal meanings of literacy. In Literacy in African
American communities (pp. 29-48). Routledge.
Revelle, W., & Wilt, J. (2013). The general factor of personality: A general critique. Journal
of research in personality, 47(5), 493-504.
Rothe, J. P. (2017). The scientific analysis of personality. Routledge.P.77
Sánchez-Álvarez, N., Extremera, N., & Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2016). The relation between
emotional intelligence and subjective well-being: A meta-analytic investigation. The
Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(3), 276-285.
Thurstone, L. L. (2013). The nature of intelligence. Routledge.P.44-47
van der Linden, D., Pekaar, K. A., Bakker, A. B., Schermer, J. A., Vernon, P. A., Dunkel, C.
S., & Petrides, K. V. (2017). Overlap between the general factor of personality and
emotional intelligence: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 143(1), 36.
Vernon, P. E. (2014). Personality Tests and Assessments (Psychology Revivals). Routledge.
Zuffianò, A., Alessandri, G., Gerbino, M., Kanacri, B. P. L., Di Giunta, L., Milioni, M., &
Caprara, G. V. (2013). Academic achievement: The unique contribution of self-
efficacy beliefs in self-regulated learning beyond intelligence, personality traits, and
self-esteem. Learning and individual differences, 23, 158-162.