Talk:Personality test

Missing aspect. Electrodermal Activity for physiological measures commonly used in personality research. Larsen et al in Personality Psychology - Domains of Knowledge about Human Nature, p. 165. McGraw-Hill (2013), 5th ed. (European version) I think. Care to add? 193.69.139.160 (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

This article is good about keeping a neutral tone about the topic through its length. The article, does however, have a poor citation to text proportion. There are large paragraphs that are completely devoid of any references at all like in the "Respondent Faking" and "Test Development" sections. Many of the citations are also rather out of date. Adding more sources and replacing older ones with more up to date information would be an easy place to begin improving the article. (for personality theory class wiki project) MLYCCX (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason that the Forté Profile, Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory, Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, Swedish Universities Scales of Personality, Edwin E. Wagner's The Hand Test, and Enneagram of Personality were brushed over as "Other personality tests" in the "Examples" section of this article? If there is no reason, I will work on giving them short descriptions similar to the other examples listed in that section of the article. (for personality theory class wiki project) MLYCCX (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Is the Lüscher color test worth mentioning here?--BillFlis 13:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The entry on BTSA reads like promotional material rather than an encyclopedic description; it is also noticeably longer than the other entries in the section. Would it be better to shorten this and make it sound more objective, and include a link to a page describing BTSA? TeamCoachingNetwork 09:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Too much uncited detail. The entry needs to be shortened radically, and a seprate, properly sourced article created. Quakerman 16:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have edited Katherine's entry to make it more objective. I do hope she will write the page for her instrument. TeamCoachingNetwork 22:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a fair number of tests at the same site that hosts the Robin Hood Morality Test. Is a site such as this worth mentioning? 204.13.204.194 (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an especially instructive test, related to major personality theory, and research-based. It is free and online at: http://mynichecomputing.org/risChecklist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.78.134 (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the semi-referenced section below. It's an add, and not appropriate in the section, I reckon. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This is still relevant to today's job market, where use of [[Unicru]] personality tests has become unpopular enough to create a demand for software applications to automate the process of filling them out.<ref name=pbot>{{citeweb | title = pBot 1.1 is here! They want to hire a robot? Give 'em a robot!| url = http://www.glassboxfactory.com/pbot/}}</ref>

Mrm7171, you were right to delete commercial web sites. It was good that you deleted the Ultimate Guide web site and another commercial site. I also deleted commercial sites. The International Personality Item Pool is a different story. It is noncommercial, and available to researchers for free. It is the result of an international collaboration among researchers. It should be retained. It is a very good site. Iss246 (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Being "commercial" or not has nothing to do with it. What matters is whether or not is has encyclopedic value beyond what should be in this article. --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I realize that Ronz. I was responding to the apparent reason for its deletion, which according to the comments, was that the site is commercial. It isn't.

With regard the separate but important issue you raise, I report that the IPIP is an important site. It covers a broad range of measures of personality traits. The site makes the measures, which were provided by personality researchers, available to other researchers, graduate students, undergraduates, etc. Iss246 (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Iss246. It has considerable encyclopedic value, especially to both research and applied psychologists. It is not spam. It is not commercial. No one is trying to sell anything on the website. It is public domain. It's free and useful. And there is absolutely no harm in keeping the link. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with Ronz on this one and I really do think you are missing the point iss246. I deleted this external link as it has no encyclopedic value. It also has promotional links to commercial websites on the site, see: http://www.ori.org/ It is also providing promotion for a small set of selected personality tests, free or not free. It also promotes consulting services! It is not representative of all personality tests, it is not balanced. For all these reasons, and many more, I think it needs to be deleted with the other 3 websites I also deleted.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The website does not link to commercial websites; please explain how it does. And a website does not have to be perfectly representative of "all personality tests" or perfectly "balanced" to be linked in the external links section. And please give us the evidence that the website promotes consulting services, i.e., where does it solicit consultation services? And finally, the fact that the link has been in the article for at least two years gives it de facto consensus, which requires a new consensus to remove it. And there is no current consensus to remove it. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

http://ipip.ori.org/newConsultingHelp.htm. this link to consulting services? This link to a commercial website, http://www.ori.org/ Just because this external link was not removed does not warrant its inclusion. It provides no encyclopedic value and I have just shown 2 links for commercial purposes. Wikipedia is not here for promotion purposes, or free research! Can you answer to both Ronz's and my specific points here.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, it was a mistake to delete the site (May 24, 2014P) when you wrote, "External links: deleted more commercial websites, with consulting and other commercial interests attached." Iss246 (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The site was supported by the NIMH from 1992 to 2006. It became a non-profit collaborative after the NIMH stopped supporting it.

The IPIP site "is intended to provide rapid access to measures of individual differences, all in the public domain, to be developed conjointly among scientists worldwide. Later, the site may include raw data available for reanalysis; in addition, it should serve as a forum for the dissemination of psychometric ideas and research findings." It exists to help researchers. Paul Spector in his website mentions IPIP as a source researchers can use when searching for items.

ORI (http://www.ori.org/about_ori), which is cited in the IPIP web site, is a legitimate, noncommercial research institute located in Eugene. For example, you would not exclude the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory because it is also a non-profit.

The one person at the IPIP web site offering "limited" consulting is a consulting editor at JPSP and other personality journals. His consulting amounts to answering emails about the IPIP. He is much more interested in putting personality items into the public domain (Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. G. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84-96. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007) Iss246 (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

www.ori.org is not a commercial website. One link to one person's availability for consulting does not mean the website as a whole promotes consulting. Almost any website (including many of those linked on Wikipedia), if you click around enough, will have something that conceivably could be considered promotional. That does not make the website commercial; and if it does, most links on Wikipedia need to be removed. And yes, material that has been in article for two years has de facto consensus; that's common on Wikipedia when there is no dispute about material in an article and no policy violations.. A new consensus is required to make a change if editors disagree with each other. And the concerns about encyclopedic value has already been addressed by Iss 246 and me. Now, please wait for a consensus before removing the link again. Thank you. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 01:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links especially section titled: Advertising and conflicts of interest 100 other websites and hundreds of other personality tests could and should be added for balance, if this external link to websites remains in this article. This link needs to be deleted. It is against Wikipedia policy. It is of no encyclopedic value either? Perhaps we need some dispute resolution here? And some more 'eyes' on this commercial external link advertising a small range of personality tests over 100s of others? Seems very promotional to me? Advertising and driving traffic to external websites?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want more eyes on this issue, I encourage you to follow the procedures at WP:DR or seek opinions at WP:ELN. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

listed at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard No need to edit war. We just need clarification on policy it seems. Again, could you please answer to the points made by Ronz and myself. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Your points have been addressed, just not in a way that you want to accept as valid. The fact that we disagree does not mean that we have not addressed the issues. Let's see if we get more opinions. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I have agreed with Ronz on this one. The external link adds no encyclopedic value? Also, 100 other websites and hundreds of other personality tests in their research stage, could, and should be added for balance, if this external link to websites remains in this article? Wikipedia is not here for advertising lecturers consultancy services, or driving traffic to commercial websites. Mrm7171 (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure that I can name 100 web sites that contain legitimate personality tests. Many personality variables are covered in the IPIP site. It is not devoted to a single construct.

Moreover, the items and scales from the IPIP have have been widely used. I don't know the number today but as of 2005 IPIP items have been translated into more than 25 languages other than English and research published in more than 80 journals have employed IPIP scales. Researchers like the IPIP web site because the items and scales are free, unlike personality inventories such as the NEO. There are free scoring keys. There are thousands of items. The site as tremendous breadth. It is a web site that has been useful to personality researchers. It has encyclopedic value. It belongs in the external links. Iss246 (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It would not be a policy violation to include the link, but I don't see how it adds to a reader's understanding of the article subject, nor does it seem to be authoritative. Ultimately, this comes down to (consensus) editorial discretion. I would favor excluding any external links for this article unless there is near unanimity for including them.- MrX 02:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Will leave the link in for a bit longer. But I agree with both Ronz and MrX. I cannot see why or how this external link adds to the reader's understanding of this topic and is certainly not authoritative? It also is providing free research for the developers of these 'selected' tests. And if included, we would obviously need to include many more external links too and many more personality tests that are currently being developed. Best solution seems to be to just delete this link.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

What are those many personality tests that have been developed at noncommercial sites? I would like to know about them. Iss246 (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think there is now consensus to just delete this link. I agree with both Ronz and MrX. I cannot see why or how this external link adds to the reader's understanding of this topic and is certainly not authoritative.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No. I am opposed to deleting the link. Iss246 (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus at this point, Mrm7171, especially if you include comments at WP:ELN. Your claiming that there is does not make it so. For now the link stays. If there is still no consensus in a reasonable time, please follow WP:DR. There are other appropriate procedures on Wikipedia when consensus cannot be reached. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The debate about whether or not to include a link to the International Personality Item Pool on the Personality Test page has been brought to my attention. I am John A. Johnson, Penn State Professor Emeritus of Psychology, the person who is listed on the IPIP website as the person who "has agreed to provide limited consultation on IPIP-related topics." I wanted to affirm that my "consultation" has always been limited to answering questions about the IPIP and that I have never received remuneration of any sort for providing this service. Therefore, the characterization of my services as "commercial" is completely erroneous. The same is true for the IPIP website and the Oregon Research Institute. Neither are commercial entities. In fact, the IPIP was developed as a reaction against the stranglehold of the commercialized personality testing industry. It is the opinion of the IPIP creator, Dr. Lewis R. Goldberg, that the restrictions placed on the use of personality tests by commercial publishers has seriously impeded the progress of scientific research on personality. The IPIP was therefore created to provide a public-domain alternative to commercial tests, and its popularity has be growing steadily since the site's inception. Unlike the content of commercial tests, IPIP items and scales can be freely copied, edited, rearranged, translated, and administered on the Web by any person. The IPIP site contains over 2,000 items and hundreds of professionally-developed scales that measure constructs similar to those in the major commercial personality inventories. Now, I am not an authority on what constitutes "encyclopedic value" in a Wikipedia article, but it seems to me that the IPIP has significant educational value.Hostirad (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi John Johnson. May I ask who was responsible for bringing... "The debate about whether or not to include a link to the International Personality Item Pool on the Personality Test page has been brought to my attention?"?Mrm7171 (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I also need to say, John Johnson, separarate to any other issues now raised, you could be anyone? Couldn't you? How do I know you are the owner of the website and the external link that you and iss246 are insisting must be included in this article? How do I know you don't charge money for your services?Mrm7171 (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If you doubt my identity, please browse to my professional webpage at http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/5/j5j/ , click on my online vita (where you will find a list of my published articles) and contact me through my official Penn State email address that is listed at the top of the vita. I will write back and confirm that I am Wikipedia editor Hostirad. It does not matter to me whether a link to the IPIP site (which I do not own) in the Personality Test wikipedia article. I have nowhere "insisted" nor will I ever "insist" on a link to the IPIP site. I simply wanted to correct the erroneous description of the IPIP site as a commercial site and provide an accurate description of what the site actually offers (this can be verified by browsing the site). I also wanted to confirm that I am not paid by either the owner of the IPIP website (Dr. Lewis R. Goldberg of the Oregon Research Institute) or by individuals who ask questions about the IPIP. To suggest that I am actually paid when I am not is an attack on my academic integrity, and I object to this mischaracterization. If anyone has questions about the actual nature of the IPIP website and its educational value or about my own professional work, I will be happy to answer them. Otherwise, I have nothing more to say on this subject.Hostirad (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Hostirad. Actually, any editor here could easily have requested that an admin go through the usual procedure to confirm your identity. But then, of course, if your identify was confirmed, there would be no opportunity for anyone to raise doubts about the veracity of your claims or to insinuate that you are a sockpuppet or coordinated operative of another editor in this discussion. You also should know that the standard template you received about conflict of interest applies to editing articles about the subject matter with COI; it does not apply to comments on talk pages. You can express yourself freely here. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It also applies to attempts to influence WP:CONSENSUS anywhere, including talk page discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Rest assured, Hostirad, you have committed no policy violation and you are fully entitled to express your opinions here. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that remains to be seen. For example, how was he alerted of this dispute? Elizium23 (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

That was my question too? Remains unanswered?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Elizium and Mrm, seek administrative investigation and action about your suspicions if you feel the need, but cease the attempts to create an impression of guilt by repeated and unsubstantiated insinuations. If you think Hostirad has violated policy, then the appropriate course of action is to request that an admin begin an investigation. If that is not your plan, then drop the issue. If you continue I won't hesitate to discuss your comments at WP:ANI. The insinuations can go both ways, you know. If the prevailing tactic here is to accuse by insinuation, you two are just as vulnerable as anyone here. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, once again with the ANI threat again, 75., that old canard is getting tiresome and boring coming from you. You're more than welcome to try and drag me there. Meanwhile I stand by what I said. Meatpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing are both prohibited by Wikipedia policy. The fact that Hostirad asserts he was alerted to this discussion, combined with the fact that Hostirad has never edited anything else in seven years of holding an account, combined with the fact that there is no message on Hostirad's user talk page pointing him here before his post, points to some kind of off-wiki coordination. It's simple induction that I am using, I am not insinuating anything. I have done nothing actionable by administrators and frankly there is nothing that can be done in an administrator's investigation, if the coordination or canvassing has been done under the radar, it could well have been done in online chat, email, phone call, what have you: that is not findable by anyone on Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm . . . maybe you're on to something here. Meatpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing . . . Mrm and Elizium . . . hmmm?? 75.177.156.78 (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether he is the owner of the website, he is now a Wikipedia editor who has expressed an opinion. He is part of this consensus discussion, and your doubts about who he represents himself to be does not make his opinion here any better or worse than your own. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

He is an editor, albeit one with a declared conflict of interest and possibly in violation of rules against coordinated editing and rules about canvassing. So his opinion here can be discounted as a matter of course. For what it's worth. I oppose inclusion of the link unless its relevance and intrinsic worth can be proven through WP:RS. Elizium23 (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said, any editor can clearly read Elizium23's comments above regarding conflict of interest and "possibly in violation of rules against coordinated editing and rules about canvassing." Elizium23's comments seemed reasonable to me. I think they are very measured. Elizium23 has also now notified Hostirad on their talk page regarding conflict of interest. If Elizium23 wanted to initiate further action I'm sure they are more than competent in doing so as an experienced editor.Mrm7171 (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

IPIP has substantial worth for Wikipedia readers, many of whom are students. The IPIP is a boon to unfunded and under-funded research in personality. Undergraduates and graduate students (and professors and other investigators) with an interest in personality research can obtain scales from the noncommercial IPIP site at no cost. I don't know of as vast an effort in psychology to make as many items and scales freely available. Iss246 (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Citations to prove this would be necessary at this point to overturn consensus in favor of keeping the link. We need proof, not just assertions in a vacuum. Elizium23 (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Elizium23's logic here regarding citations needed to overturn consensus. When 5 independent editors all agree that the best solution is to delete the link, perhaps that should just be the solution and move on?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus at the present time. If you want to change the link to a citation, it would be quite easy to seek help from an uninvolved editor at WT:PSY. Or are you concerned that letting others who actually know something about the topic might sway consensus against you? 75.177.156.78 (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Elizium23 said "citations to prove this would be necessary at this point to overturn consensus....." I agreed with this logic. Seems like a consensus to me too? 5 editors in favor 2 against? Consensus?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No consensus. Consensus is not a vote. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a good deal of research that depends on the IPIP.Iss246 (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC) I provide some asked-for examples of citations:

Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C., & Gough, H. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal Of Research In Personality, 40(1), 84-96. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007

Buchanan, T., Johnson, J. A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2005). Implementing a Five-Factor Personality Inventory for Use on the Internet. European Journal Of Psychological Assessment, 21(2), 115-127. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.21.2.115

Socha, A., Cooper, C. A., & McCord, D. M. (2010). Confirmatory factor analysis of the M5-50: An implementation of the International Personality Item Pool item set. Psychological Assessment, 22(1), 43-49. doi:10.1037/a0017371

Schell, K. L., & Oswald, F. L. (2013). Item grouping and item randomization in personality measurement. Personality And Individual Differences, 55(3), 317-321. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.03.008

Goldberg L., Johnson J., Gough H., et al. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal Of Research In Personality, 40(1), 84-96.

Lim, B., & Ployhart, R. E. (2006). Assessing the Convergent and Discriminant Validity of Goldberg's International Personality Item Pool: A Multitrait-Multimethod Examination. Organizational Research Methods, 9(1), 29-54. doi:10.1177/1094428105283193

Laverdière, O., Morin, A. S., & St-Hilaire, F. (2013). Factor structure and measurement invariance of a short measure of the Big Five personality traits. Personality And Individual Differences, 55(7), 739-743. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.06.008

Waiyavutti, C., Johnson, W., & Deary, I. J. (2011). Do personality scale items function differently in people with high and low IQ?. Psychological Assessment, doi:10.1037/a0026266

I could go on but I will stop here. These are very fine journals. The authors are hard-working researchers. Lewis Goldberg, a prime mover behind the IPIP, has been a very important researcher. Iss246 (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Based on these excellent sources I hereby reverse my position to support inclusion of the IPIP website. Elizium23 (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to find these sources Iss246. That sheds a lot of light on this issue. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Your welcome. Iss246 (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I have posted a link to this discussion at WT:PSY. That might get a few more knowledgeable opinions over the next few days. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)