Toward a Process-Based Framework for Classifying Personality Tests: Comment on Meyer and Kurtz (2006)

Abstract

Meyer and Kurtz (2006) argued that the longstanding psychological test labels “objective” and “projective” have outlived their usefulness, and invited further work focusing on alternative terms for these measures. This Comment describes a framework for classifying personality tests based on the psychological processes that occur as people respond to test stimuli. Because an attribution process is involved in responding to both types of measures, those instruments formerly called “objective” tests are labeled self-attribution tests, and those formerly classified as “projective” tests are labeled stimulus-attribution tests. The possibility of extending the process-based framework beyond personality, to psychological tests in general, is also discussed. Clinical and empirical implications of a process-based framework are considered.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank Violeta Bianucci, Daniel Freeman, Mark Hilsenroth, Michelle Sonnenberg, and all those who participated in the JPA review process for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article.

Notes

¹I use the term attribution in its broadest form here, not only to denote the causal inferences that people draw regarding various internal experiences and external events (Buehner & McGregor, 2006), but also to include the neurocognitive mechanisms through which people automatically attribute meaning to stimuli whose purpose and identity are unclear (see Kensinger & Schacter, 2006).

²In lieu of asking the respondent to report longstanding behavior or current functioning, some self-attribution test items ask the respondent to speculate regarding attitudes, abilities, or preferences (e.g., “I would make a good leader,” “I would rather be a physician than an attorney”). With respect to psychological process these are more closely aligned with trait than state test items.

³In conceptualizing the psychological processes that occur as people respond to stimulus-attribution tests it is important to note that responses to ambiguous test stimuli are not determined exclusively (or even primarily) by personality characteristics of the testee but by stimulus characteristics as well, and it is possible to study empirically the impact of “stimulus pull” on responses to stimulus-attribution test items (Weiner, 2003).

⁴Certain types of measures (e.g., Q-sorts) may be included in more than one category, depending upon whether they involve self-description (i.e., self-attribution), or description by a familiar other (in which case they represent informant reports). Similarly, most archival data can be classified either as a form of observational measure (if data initially were based on direct observation, e.g., nurses' notes of patient behavior), or as a form of informant report (if data consist of the summary conclusions or judgments of knowledgeable others, e.g., end-of-semester evaluations provided by teachers or academic advisors). Finally, whereas structured interviews represent self-attribution tests (akin to “verbal questionnaires”; see Rogers, 2003), unstructured and semistructured interviews whose focus is determined largely by the clinician's inferences and assessment goals are best considered techniques for gathering and synthesizing clinical data, not as formal psychological tests.