Then, the paper will go onto further detail about problems and, dilemmas, that accompanied the old traditional classification. As a consequence of this state of affairs, the psychological community all agreed upon one matter. In short, it’s a fact of necessity, that the old terms, “projective” and “objective ” must be parted with. ” Finally, substitute terms are needed to be designated as suitable the new placements, and, the community is all in agreement to simply refer to assessment tasks by their specific name.
Unit 8 Assignment Historical use of the Terms Objective and Projective More than 10 years ago, psychologists have been labeling personality tests y dividing them into two separate types either the objective method or the projective method. Many people have seen them in documents, in the same exact way. Those two words continue to be seen in textbooks, in all types of articles, in graduate programs, and, generally all over the place.
Don’t waste your time!
Order your assignment!
Historically, many psychologists have become used to utilizing these terms without fully realizing that they do not begin to define, the psychological personality assessment tests that, they are purported to identify. “The terms “objective” and “projective” are not only scientifically inaccurate, but problematic from a repossession standpoint as well” (Bernstein, 2007, p. 202). Because, science is trying to keep up with today’s times they are trying to eliminate those two terms, objective and projective from the lexicon. In the interests of advancing the science of personality assessment, we believe it is time to end this historical practice and retire these terms from our formal lexicon and general discourse describing the methods of personality assessment” (Meyer & Kurt, 2006, p. 223). The old descriptions do not accurately describe a human personality. Historically, the methods that were used for describing personality assessment sets have always been divided into two separate parts. The one section has been objective and the other section has always been projective.
These words are ambiguous because they have several possible meanings and they are difficult to comprehend, distinguish or classify a certain type personality in these tests. It’s like painting a picture with two different colors and trying to classify it, with only two colors. The results of this show that the terms are so unclear, and they have multiple meanings. “Unfortunately, the terms objective and projective carry multiple, often unclear, meanings, including some connotations that re very misleading when applied to personality assessment instruments and methods” (Meyer & Kurt, 2006, p. 223).
It is essential not to utilize these words as umbrella words because they do not cover everything they are purported to. “The old and familiar terminology of objective and projective personality tests has misleading connotations that will not serve the field well as we seek to have a more differentiated understanding of assessment methods” (Meyer & Kurt, 2006, p. 224). Some other reasonable alternatives need to be agreed upon and utilized. These unsuitable words cannot be continued because they re misleading in terminology. “The unsuitable and primitive nature of the term projective is revealed when trying to arrive.
It in umbrella label to characterize tasks as diverse as drawing one’s family, telling stories in response to pictures, and stating what an ink blot looks like” (Meyer & Kurt, 2006, p. 224). Problems with Traditional Classification There cannot continue to be a broad-based paintbrush that is applied and continues to label all psychometric personality assessment tests. “Tests that are not so categorized will tend to be viewed less positively, regardless of psychometric data, because they are, after all, not objective” (Meyer & Kurt, 2006, p. 223).
Because of the past, there is too much negativity surrounding the term, projective. The terminology both, “objective” and “projective” are not necessarily what they seem. “The term “objective” is a smokescreen for measures that can be just as subjective as anything else and the term “projective” is derived from untenable theoretical concepts that have continued to create confusion in the field for a long time” (Chilliness, 2007, p. 197). Some other substantial problem is when the effects of a test cannot be duplicated by the amen test more than one time. If assessment psychologists did not derive overarching frameworks and terminologies for classifying psychological tests, those who use, study, or critique these tests would do it anyway. In this respect, it is better that an organizing framework be made explicit (and the logic underlying the framework spelled out in detail) than that multiple contrasting framework and labels emerge in isolation among different segments of the psychological community” (Bernstein, 2007, p. 205).
The volume of the dilemmas above have all been a culmination of psychologists and psychiatrists in this immunity and their opinions about the problems with traditional classification. It seems best that the psychological community takes charge in what will become their legacy for the future of these psychometric personality assessment tasks and tests. Suggestions made by the authors referring to specific tests Agreements with this article are noted as the many arguments are found out.
The traditional classification of the language cannot continue to hush up a global definition for these two words. “The field of personality assessment will not advance by relying on crude terminology to globally characterize all the asks that are not self-report questionnaires or informant rating scales” (Meyer & Kurt, 2006, p. 225). Whatever the changes become in the future, they must be authentic in order for them to be credible. Suitability, is a must for it to be capable to interpret the worldwide community. If one of the substitute terms noted does not seem suitable to replace projective, it would be most optimal for clinicians, researchers, and teachers to simply refer to assessment tasks by their specific name, for example, the Rorschach Inkblot Method, Holman Inkblot Task, Mural’s TAT, Lovingness SECT” (Meyer & Kurt, 2006, p. 225). These are mom of the suggestions made by the authors Meyer and Kurt that was referring to specific tests. The authors would rather the test be called by their given name in any situation.
This is what will bring clarity to the field of psychometric personality assessment testing for all of the professionals that are involved. In all of this changing there must not be any going back in time. This change must be an advancement for the future of the field of personality assessment. “The Journal of Personality Assessment will facilitate the transition to more adequately differentiated assessment terminology by asking authors to avoid referring to disagrees of personality tests as objective or projective” (Meyer & Kurt, 2006, p. 25). Further, agreements are for the proper use of terminology that describes a better way to label psychometric personality assessment tests. “The author’s objection is to reflexive use of historically ingrained terms that poorly describe the complex and distinctive methods used to assess personality” (Meyer & Kurt, 2006, p. 225). Summary of Selected Personality Test Name: Mrs.. Cynthia Brown Age: 32 years old Marital Status: Single, Divorced, Black, Female Number of children: 4 children (2 boys) Gregory Brown- 16 years old
Bobby Brown- 13 years old (2 girls) Marion Brown- 7 years old Wendy Brown- 2 years old Educational level: Seventh Grade Dropout (due to pregnancy) Income level: Unemployed, on public assistance, and, receives both food stamps, and WICK, to help feed her children. Relevant medical history: Cynthia has a history of seizures (only when drinking), high blood pressure, and she suffers with deep depression very often. Cynthia has never worked a day in her life because she has constant seizures due to her alcohol drinking, she falls out at least a couple of times a day.
Referral: Cynthia Brown’s referral was that she was court ordered room judge Tom Church and he insisted that she gets the alcohol rehabilitation or her children will be taken away from her permanently and placed into the foster care system. He also added parenting classes be completed by a specific date that was given. “It has been known since Hippocratic times that alcohol overuse causes epileptic seizures . The nature of this relationship is complex and poorly understood.
Despite being a considerable problem in neurological practice, and responsible for one – third of seizure – related admissions [2 – 5], there is little consensus as to the optimal investigation and management of alcohol – related seizures” (Breathe, et al. , 2011, p. 1). According to Biostatic, (R. Biostatic, personal communication, October 9, 2014) Cynthia, was court ordered to go for alcohol counseling and intervention or the judge finally threatened to take away her children. The final incident that did it for the judge was Cynthia, was cooking and she fell out again after drinking very heavily.
Cynthia got burned throughout her whole body with 50% third-degree burns. The judge has a moral obligation to keep Cynthia and her children out of danger. She is also ordered to go to parenting classes once she completes her alcohol rehabilitation. Assessment is necessary in order to find out where the client is in their particular situation. According to, Cohen, Skewered, & Stuntman (2013) “Assessment for drug addiction and for alcohol and substance abuse has become routine in a number of settings” (p. 511).
In Cynthia ‘s situation, the most appropriate instrument in personality assessment for evaluating her primary presenting problem would be the Western Personality Inventory. This is the most appropriate instrument that would help assess the likelihood of alcohol addiction or abuse in Mrs.. Cynthia Brown because, it only takes 20 minutes for one test and 10 minutes or the other test and, right now time is not on Cynthia side. “The Western Personality Inventory or the * (WHIP), combines the Manson Evaluation and the Laced Test to predict the likelihood of alcohol addiction or abuse.
It is a combination of the Manson Evaluation and the Laced Test. Search for those test names to obtain reviews of each of those instruments” (Burros, 2014). There would be limitations if the two tests are not utilized together. These tests are recommended to be used as a combination of two tests that make up one. “This test is a combination of two tests that make-up this one, called the Western Personality Inventory” (Burros, 2014). The Manson Evaluation (Revised Edition): “Identifies alcoholics and potential alcoholics” (Burros, 2014).
The Laced Test (Revised Edition): “Designed to: a) provide an objective measurement of alcoholic addiction that could identify individuals whose behavior and personality structure indicated that they were alcoholic addicts or had serious alcoholic problems; b) identify specific areas of maladjustment in alcoholics to facilitate therapeutic and rehabilitation activities; and c) obtain better insight into the psycho dynamics of alcoholic addiction” (Burros, 2014). This test not only assesses the information necessary about the alcoholism, but, it also addresses the clients personality structure as well.
Once, Cynthia Brown is in rehabilitation and has completed it successfully, she will be able to utilize the importance of the personality structure from this assessment instrument. This will hopefully help her gain willful employment in the future. Conclusion For many years, the research has been done about personality testing instruments and it has indicated that it is necessary. “Psychological, personality assessment instruments are utilized by many Fortune 500 companies at 0%” (Psychometric testing facts, 2014, p. 1) .
These companies find that they can choose team players who are willing to go to work for them and make their company earn money exponentially. The psychological community is totally in agreement about this testing, but they just are not sure how to label the assessment testing. These personality functions become a necessary important piece of info for career occupations and recruitment for working in high paying occupations. The psychological community is entirely in agreement that naming these tests are a whole bunch more comfortable than attempting to able them all with two separate labels that do not just explain them right.
The determinations of the authors who led to assisting with naming the two new methods have at least come to the conclusion that the old words need to be withdrawn. In the end, they are all in agreement for now to only predict the names of the test by their names that they were originally nominated. Finally, now these very special psychometric personality assessment tests can be used for even the average person like, Mrs.. Cynthia Brown who is in need of it right now.