1. Constructing Trait Measures for Self- and Observer Report

2. Strategies of personality inventory construction
The empirical strategy (also known as the criterion keying approach)
The example of femininity/masculinity
The example of shyness
The example of schizophrenia
The factor-analytic strategy
conscientious, dependable, reliable, careful
agreeable, accommodating, considerate, kind
The rational strategy

4. I am socially somewhat awkward.
Personality Inventory Please read the following items and decide how well they describe your personality. Respond to each according to the following list of alternatives:
a. very much unlike me
b. somewhat unlike me
c. somewhat like me
d. very much like me
I am socially somewhat awkward.
I don’t find it hard to talk with strangers
I feel tense when I’m with people I don’t know well.
When conversing I worry about saying something dumb.
I feel nervous when speaking to someone in authority.
I am often uncomfortable at parties and other social functions.
I feel inhibited in social situations.
I have trouble looking someone right in the eye.
I am more shy with members of the opposite sex.

5. Strategies of personality inventory construction
The empirical strategy (also known as the criterion keying approach)
The example of femininity/masculinity
The example of shyness
The example of schizophrenia
The factor-analytic strategy
conscientious, dependable, reliable, careful
agreeable, accommodating, considerate, kind
The rational strategy

6. Comparisons of the three strategies
Studies by Jackson (1975), Ashton and Goldberg (1973), and Knudson and Golding (1974) found somewhat better validity evidence for rationally-constructed measures than for ones constructed using the empirical or the factor-analytic strategy.
On the other hand, several other studies, including one by Burisch (1984), found essentially no difference, though the rational strategy is generally simpler and easier to implement than the other two approaches.
Many researchers develop their initial item pool using the rational strategy and then apply the factor analysis strategy to the first waves of data to further refine the scale.

7. Some widely-used personality inventories
The California Psychological Inventory (CPI): Gough (empirical approach)
The Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI): Hogan (job performance)
The 16 Personality Factors Questionnaire (16PF): Cattell; Conn and Rieke
The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ): Eysenck (supertraits)
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI): Myers and Briggs (Jungian types)
The Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI): Cloninger et al.
The Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ): Tellegen
The Jackson Personality Inventory (JPI): Jackson
The Nonverbal Personality Questionnaire (NPQ): Paunonen et al. (drawings)
The Big Five Inventory (BFI): John, Donahue, and Kentle
The NEO Personality Inventory: Costa and McCrae (NEO-PI, NEO-FFI)
The HEXACO Personality Inventory: Lee and Ashton (Big Five plus H)
The International Personality Item Pool (IPIP): Goldberg

8. Self- and observer reports on personality measures
Agreement between self- and observer reports
Agreement averages about .50 (about .40 when the observers are neighbors or acquaintances and about .60 when the observers are spouses or close friends)
These levels of agreement are fairly high
However, are they good evidence for the reality of personality traits?
The alternative interpretation is that traits are socially constructed and are not necessarily real

9. Yortuk and Georg Festrunk: Two wild and crazy guys

10. Why do self- and observer reports tend to agree?
Funder, Kolar, and Blackman (1995) compared reports of college students’ personalities provided by (a) the students themselves, (b) a hometown friend, and (c) a college friend
The ratings provided by the hometown friend and the college friend correlated about .30 on average
Even more important, the same average correlation of .30 was found regardless of whether the hometown friend and the college friend had ever met and “compared notes”
These data favor the interpretation that traits are real rather than simply socially constructed

11. The validity of self- and observer reports in predicting behavior
Kolar, Funder, and Colvin (1996) compared the predictive validity (behavioral validity) of self-ratings with the predictive validity of ratings by one or two knowledgeable peers
On average, self-ratings predicted trait-relevant behavior at slightly less than .30
On average, the ratings of a single knowledgeable peer predicted the target person’s trait-relevant behavior about .35
On average, the combined ratings of two knowledgeable peers predicted the target person’s trait-relevant behavior about .40

12. Are observer ratings always better predictors than self-ratings?
No. If the trait is one that is largely “unobservable” by others, self-ratings are often better predictors of trait-relevant behaviors than observer ratings are
The example of extraversion (observers can quickly size up someone’s level of extraversion, even at “zero acquaintance”)
The example of anxiety (to the extent we hide our anxiety from others, our self-ratings of anxiety will be better predictors of anxiety-related behaviors than their observer ratings will be)
The example of being a jerk

13. Examples of projective tests
The Rorschach Inkblot test
The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT)
The Human Figure Drawing Test

14. The Rorschach Inkblot Test
Developed by Herman Rorschach
born in 1884, died in 1922 at age 37
published his book Psychodiagnostik in 1921

15. The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT)
Developed by Henry Murray
born 1883, died 1988 at age 95
developed the TAT in the 1930s

16. The Human Figure Drawing Test