In Similar Minds’ Big Five personality inventory, they provide a test which utilizes the trait approach and five-factor model to determine personality. Although the test does a good job in providing a simple representation of the trait approach, their test fails to provide an accurate and consistent measure of an individual’s personality due to its overly generic and scalar questions, low sample size and lack of validity scales, and because the five major personality factors they used in their five-factor model do not include personality traits that are more prominent in other, non-western societies.
In the trait approach, personality traits are divided into five major trait groups called factors, (Digman., 1996, p. 9 - 10). In Specific Minds’ …show more content…
As the test only contains fifty-five questions, it is difficult to believe that the test can accurately grade all five of your main personality factors. In addition, since the test consists of a low volume of questions, it seems that the test creators were unable to incorporate any sort of validity scale which would mitigate test-taker bias and increase the test’s reliability. As demonstrated in the MMPI, a well-recognized test utilized for measuring psychopathy, validity scales are questions designed to “detect content responsive faking (e.g., faking good or faking bad) as well as content non-responsivity (randomly responding)”, (Burke, 2007, p. iv). Without these validity scales, the test has no method of combatting test-takers who overrate or underrate certain aspects of their personality. For example, a self-serving and biased test-taker that indicates that they will “do anything for others” may be shown inaccurate test results which state that they are high in accommodation.
Lastly, Simple Minds’ Big Five personality test fails to provide an accurate measure of personality because the five-factor model that their trait approach relies upon cannot accurately determine the personality of individuals in non-western societies. For instance, many researchers in China have discovered new twenty-six personality traits not covered by the five-factor model used in western societies. Furthermore, they discovered an additional factor unique to China called “interpersonal relatedness” which expressed an individual’s social harmony and tradition, (Cheung et al., 2001, p.
In the trait approach, personality traits are divided into five major trait groups called factors, (Digman., 1996, p. 9 - 10). In Specific Minds’ …show more content…
As the test only contains fifty-five questions, it is difficult to believe that the test can accurately grade all five of your main personality factors. In addition, since the test consists of a low volume of questions, it seems that the test creators were unable to incorporate any sort of validity scale which would mitigate test-taker bias and increase the test’s reliability. As demonstrated in the MMPI, a well-recognized test utilized for measuring psychopathy, validity scales are questions designed to “detect content responsive faking (e.g., faking good or faking bad) as well as content non-responsivity (randomly responding)”, (Burke, 2007, p. iv). Without these validity scales, the test has no method of combatting test-takers who overrate or underrate certain aspects of their personality. For example, a self-serving and biased test-taker that indicates that they will “do anything for others” may be shown inaccurate test results which state that they are high in accommodation.
Lastly, Simple Minds’ Big Five personality test fails to provide an accurate measure of personality because the five-factor model that their trait approach relies upon cannot accurately determine the personality of individuals in non-western societies. For instance, many researchers in China have discovered new twenty-six personality traits not covered by the five-factor model used in western societies. Furthermore, they discovered an additional factor unique to China called “interpersonal relatedness” which expressed an individual’s social harmony and tradition, (Cheung et al., 2001, p.