| Open Comment |
Committee Response |
|
|
|
Personality assessment is a psychological procedure founded on systematic empirical knowledge and high ethical standards that provides a structured, comprehensive, and comparable framework for describing, understanding, and predicting an individual’s stable and dynamic characteristics of psychological functioning (thinking, feeling, behaving), through the use of psychometrically sound tools, instruments, and techniques.
Key aspects: 1. provides a framework for psychological understanding that is comparable within and between persons. 2. involves integration of data across various methods and sources. 3. is sensitive to contextual and diversity factors in persons life. 4. adheres to the "do no harm" principle, and aims to provide psychological understanding that will ultimately improve well being and life satisfaction |
Thank you so much for your feedback. We see that there is significant overlap with this definition and the one proposed. We do agree we should include a stronger description of the implications of PA as you recommend in your proposed definition and so have added the following statement: "5. Personality Assessment has important implications for people’s lives and ultimately aims to benefit individuals, society, and scientific knowledge." |
| In the opening line of the draft statement, I suggest using the term "appraisal" in addition to measurement. There is more to personality assessment than toting up scores on tests and using objective data. |
I agree! Thank you for the comment. However, we are keeping the definition broad for the initial approach to identifying the core components of all applications of PA. |
I must admit that I am not satisfied with this definition. While I may not have the time to outline all my objections in detail, I believe I can convey the main issues effectively. Please excuse any lack of coherence in my response.
Ethical and Scientific Grounding
To begin, I find it peculiar to frame the definition of personality assessment by foregrounding ethics and scientific grounding. This is akin to describing firefighting as an equal-opportunity profession that involves the use of water and other extinguishers—these are basic, assumed components in modern professions. Of course, the work of psychologists must be ethical, and of course, it must be influenced by science and empiricism; these are foundational aspects of any professional psychological practice. If it is necessary to mention them explicitly, a more appropriate phrasing might be: “It goes without saying that the practice of psychological assessment adheres to ethical norms and is rooted in scientific thinking, as is the case for all professional psychological services.” As it stands, emphasizing these elements at the forefront feels defensive and, frankly, somewhat patronizing.
Exclusivity of Personality Assessment
The current wording suggests that personality assessment is the only way to understand individuals' thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. This absolutist view is dismissive of other possible and perhaps valuable methods. Surely, personality assessment is a useful tool, but it is not the singular approach to understanding human psychology.
Scientific Grounding and Inferences
The statement that personality assessment is “scientifically grounded” oversimplifies the situation. While our work should not contradict established scientific knowledge or principles, there is still much we do not fully understand. We often make informed inferences or hypotheses based on our current knowledge base, which itself evolves with new research and discoveries. Thus, it might be more accurate to emphasize a commitment to the scientific method and to leveraging the best available knowledge without overstating the current level of certainty in our field.
Use of the Term "Unique"
The term "unique" seems out of place in this context. While every individual is indeed unique, science is fundamentally concerned with identifying general patterns and laws. It is these patterns that allow us to make disciplined, informed observations about people. The emphasis should be on understanding generalizable traits and behaviors, not just on individual uniqueness.
Psychometrics
The phrase “show sound psychometrics in the contexts within which assessment is occurring” is vague and unnecessarily convoluted. The focus should simply be on using appropriate psychometric tools tailored to the specific context of the assessment. This is a given in any reputable psychological practice.
Integration of Multiple Methods
While it is true that personality assessment typically involves integrating data from multiple methods and sources, there are instances where this is not feasible. Sometimes, we may have access to only one method. In such cases, it is the clinician’s responsibility to acknowledge the limitations of the available data and to make careful inferences.
Sensitivity to Contextual Factors
The statement about personality assessment being “sensitive to the contextual factors of people's lives” requires clarification. If this is to be included, it would be helpful to specify what is meant by “contextual factors” to avoid ambiguity.
In conclusion, I apologize for the hurried nature of these remarks. Given the tight timeline, I wanted to ensure that I provided feedback before the upcoming deadline on November 18th. Sincerely, |
Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful comments. We have integrated some of your suggestions but would like to clarify here why we are holding off on including other suggestions. We agree the use of the term "unique" is too imprecise here. We have changed the wording to "characteristic" to capture the subteleties of individual styles. Regarding the concerns you have stated about the broad use of the terms "sound psychometrics", "scientifically grounded", and "ethical", we feel it is important to state the fundamental features that we can all agree are core components of personality assessment as a construct. We are conceptualizing this task as a starting point to ground us as we hope to open up future discussions about application of personality assessment. We hope to consider the definition as applicable to a range of audiences from within the field as well as to communicate the value of personality assessment to potential consumers. For that reason, our aim at this time is to clarify essential components while still also deferring to the expertise of the assessor. Regarding the concern about "Integration of multiple methods" we have decided to keep the original wording as this is an established ideal in the field that the interpretation of testing data should be based on multiple sources, and as you state, if there are cases where that is not possible, it is the clinician's duty to take care not to over-interpret the data. Regarding the suggestion re: clarifying contextual factors, we have decided to keep this broad as it can mean a number of things based on clinical judgement and we do not want to exclude important considerations by defining these too narrowly at this time. |
| I agree with this definition. |
Thank you for your feedback! |
|
|
|
"Personality Assessment is the ethical, empirical approach to understanding an individual's unique ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving. "
-consider adding "relating" to this list.
Also consider adding something about:
- aiming to link findings to meaningful implications for treatment, education, other interventions, etc.
-seeking to understand a person's vulnerabilities AND strengths
-offering (written, verbal) feedback to patient, family, treaters, etc. |
Thank you for your feedback! We have adding the term "relating" per your suggestion. Regarding the suggestion to incorporate something about how to apply personality assessment, we are aiming to keep the definition broad for now so that we can open up a discussion about how personality assessment is applied in different ways in the field. The current definition is conceptualized as a starting point and grounding for future discussion about applications. |
| I think the definition of Personality Assessment is excellent. I would only consider adding a comment regarding cultural diversity on part 4. |
Thank you for the suggestion. At this time, we are trying to keep the definition broad so as to remain open to all types of contextual factors including but not limited to cultural factors. |
Thank you, a nice paper. The very last paragrapf (#4 ...sensitive to the contextual...) i a very good one. It is a reminder (perhaps a warning), that reminds us, that we are dealing ultimately with the important basic issue; is this or that feature a trait or state of the patient.
with best wishes,
Pekka Koistinen |
Thank you for your comment! We agree that contextual factors are critical in the interpretation and application of testing data. |
| Pervasive complex pattern of cummulative and adpative behaviours, thinking styles and behavioural expressions that formulate a person's attitude towards its societal enviroment. Such personal patterns are adherred to basic social and cultural laws and ethos (norms) not excluding, however, dysfunctional and maladaptive manifestations of these personal patterns. |
Thank you for the comment. I believe this comment refers to an effort to define the term "personality". We have intentional left the term "personality" undefined at this time due to the current lack of a consensus definition of personality in the field. We do hope, however, that the creation of this initial definition will be a starting point for a deeper discussion among our members about ways to define "personality" in our field. |
PA aims where possible to have clinical and/or therapeutic utility, or less technical
PA aims to be of benefit to client and clinician. |
Thank you for your comment. At this time we are attempting to develop a definition that is broad in its application, such that it is not specific only to clinical uses of the term. Along those lines, however, we have included an additional bullet point that reads "5. Personality Assessment has important implications for people’s lives and ultimately aims to benefit individuals, society, and scientific knowledge." |
| I believe that the definition needs to include a statement about the benefit of such assessments to the individual and society, perhaps something like "the goal of personality assessment is to provide scientifically valid information about the individual that will help that individual, treating professionals and/or other identified recipients of the results to better understand the individual's patterns of functioning, treatment needs/goals, potential career paths and so on." |
Thank you for your comment. We do agree that a statement of benefit should be included as a separate bullet point. The following statement has been included in the revision: "5. Personality Assessment has important implications for people’s lives and ultimately aims to benefit individuals, society, and scientific knowledge." |
|
|
|
| Personality Assessment produces data for building planned change strategies and practiced action steps leading to deliberate improvements in personal and interpersonal function, relationship management and leader efficacy. |
Thank you for the suggestion. We really like this description and will keep it for further consideration as we discuss application aspects of PA. For now, however, we are aiming to keep the definition broad so that we can use this basic fundamental description as a starting point and grounding before opening up a discussion about how personality assessment is applied in the field given that it can be applied in a number of ways across specialties. This may be the most inclusive description of application we have seen so far though so we are excited to see this suggestion. |
| I love this statement, simple, straightforward, easy to understand, efficient with its wording. Thank you. |
Thank you so much for your support! |
|
|
Personality Assessment is scientifically grounded and ultimately aims to benefit those invested in understanding personality and its impact on functioning across domains of living.
Invested? Should this not be: interested? |
Thank you for your suggestion. We feel "interested" is a more accurate term than "invested". But after additional feedback, we have actually removed this statement altogether. |
|
|
|
Below is a quote from Messick (1989) re: test validity:
"...as an integrated evaluative judgment of the degree to which empirical evidence and theoretical rationales support the adequacy and appropriateness of inferences and actions based on test scores...
While the above four-point definition of Personality Assessment is succinct and broad in scope, my concern is the appeal to the shrine of 'empirical' and 'psychometrics'--these are essential, but are clinical interactive dimensions / processes and holistic interpretive aspects potentially over shadowed? |
Thank you for the feedback. We can certainly understand your concern here. Currently, we are trying to capture the construct of personality assessment without tying it to only clinical uses of the concept. However, we are hoping this will be a jumping off point for future discussions about application across different domains. This comment will be helpful in those next steps. Thank you again! |
This definition lacks two important aspects: 1) the fact that a psychologist does not do an assessment if there is no demand for it (either from the person or from a third party) and no consent from the person. 2) that it is based on a relational situation (between 2 persons) in an asymmetrical relationship, requiring to establish a contract (at least verbal) based on mutual trust. Following is a definition extracted from a French manual:
Psychological assessment is a relational situation in which a specialist ethically applies theoretical knowledge and psychological methods to the dynamic understanding of a person, child or adult, presenting difficulties at a given point in their development or life.
Psychological assessment is necessarily part of a holistic conception of people as autonomous persons in physical, emotional, intellectual, psychomotor and social state, or stage of development. They present themselves to the psychological assessment in all their complexity and uniqueness. The psychological assessment is therefore part of a multi-dimensional and dynamic perspective of the person, and requires from the psychologist
- in-depth knowledge of what a human being is
- reference to a coherent conceptual system to account for it,
- the use of reliable, evidence-based tools which scope and limitations they are aware of,
- diversified clinical experience.
Finally, the psychologist's work is always carried out within a strict ethical framework, which requires them to focus solely on the interests of the person (and not on his or her own interests, or those of an outside body). |
Thank you for the comment. While you make very good points about Psychological Assessment, we are currently interested in locating the concept of Personality Assessment in a working definition that can be applied across clinical and research domains. We are hoping to ground in a few core components and then to have future discussions with members regarding how the defnition can be expanded to clarify language around application wherein the definition may vary based on setting (I/O, Clinical, Forensic, Research, etc) and when discussing the concept with different audiences (researchers, clinicians, stakeholders, consumers). Your points are excellent however and will be carried forward in future discussions. Thank you again! |
| Practically speaking, I always introduced psychological assessment to patients as being…”Part of the clinical interview.” |
Thank you so much for your comment and your participation in this important process. |
|
The definition seems to focus mostly on "normal-range" personality assessment, which is of course the truest sense of the term. However, this definition doesn't seem to capture the personality dysfunction and psychopathology that most of the tests that SPA members research and use clinically measure, such as the Rorschach, MMPI, and PAI among others.
Is it possible to clarify whether the intention is to capture both personality and psychopathology at normal and clinical ranges in the definition?
Or is the goal to intentionally exclude the psychopathology / disorder focus to keep the definition narrow? |
Thank you for this comment. The goal was to keep the definition quite broad to include all aspects of personality assessment. We did not specifically note pathology as many areas of PA do not include this. However, we expect to use this broad definition as a basis for area-specific definitions in the future (e.g., a clinical definition). |
| In the second section prior to #1 (Personality Assessment is the ethical, empirical approach...) I would add something about how the person is may cope with setbacks/stressors and or incorporate aspects of their sense of self (can't think of how to say that differently at the moment). |
Thank you for your comment. We agree that coping and self concept are important aspects of many personality assessments! However, we have chosen not to incorporate your comment in order to keep our definition as broad as possible. |
| I support this definition. nicely done. |
Thank you so much for your support! |
|
|
| I would consider adding the term, "relating," to the current list of "thinking, feeling, and behaving." This fits in with the movement toward contextual understanding (that is well-represented in the numbered points), and is consistent with one of the Alternative Model's axes for "Level of Functioning") as well as elements of other models. |
Thank you for your comment. We agree that this suggestion adds meaning to the definition. We have included it in a revision. |
| With the exception of noting under #1 'understanding of personality and its impact', how is this different from psychological assessment? |
Thank you for your feedback! We are hoping this working defiinition will serve as a starting point for further discrimation of overlapping constructs. |
|
|
|
| I recommend that the definition be inclusive of personalty and personality disorder assessment. |
Thank you for this comment. The goal was to keep the definition quite broad to include all aspects of personality assessment. However, we expect to use this broad definition as a basis for area-specific definitions in the future (e.g., a clinical definition that would certainly include PD). |
| I like the highlighting of empirical and contextual elements of personality assessment, as well as the ode to multimethod assessment. Instead of “unique” in the second sentence, I recommend “individualized” or “characteristic.” In the first point I recommend to delete “ultimately aims” and add “strives.” |
Thank you for the recommendation. We feel the choice of the term Characteristic is more accurate than the term Unique. |
|
|
|
|
|
Defining Personality Assessment Comments and Responses
In the Winter of 2024, the SPA Board of Directors invited the SPA community to comment on its working definition of personality assessment. Below are the open comments received, as well as how the committee responded to the comments.
Key aspects: 1. provides a framework for psychological understanding that is comparable within and between persons. 2. involves integration of data across various methods and sources. 3. is sensitive to contextual and diversity factors in persons life. 4. adheres to the "do no harm" principle, and aims to provide psychological understanding that will ultimately improve well being and life satisfaction
Ethical and Scientific Grounding
To begin, I find it peculiar to frame the definition of personality assessment by foregrounding ethics and scientific grounding. This is akin to describing firefighting as an equal-opportunity profession that involves the use of water and other extinguishers—these are basic, assumed components in modern professions. Of course, the work of psychologists must be ethical, and of course, it must be influenced by science and empiricism; these are foundational aspects of any professional psychological practice. If it is necessary to mention them explicitly, a more appropriate phrasing might be: “It goes without saying that the practice of psychological assessment adheres to ethical norms and is rooted in scientific thinking, as is the case for all professional psychological services.” As it stands, emphasizing these elements at the forefront feels defensive and, frankly, somewhat patronizing.
Exclusivity of Personality Assessment
The current wording suggests that personality assessment is the only way to understand individuals' thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. This absolutist view is dismissive of other possible and perhaps valuable methods. Surely, personality assessment is a useful tool, but it is not the singular approach to understanding human psychology.
Scientific Grounding and Inferences
The statement that personality assessment is “scientifically grounded” oversimplifies the situation. While our work should not contradict established scientific knowledge or principles, there is still much we do not fully understand. We often make informed inferences or hypotheses based on our current knowledge base, which itself evolves with new research and discoveries. Thus, it might be more accurate to emphasize a commitment to the scientific method and to leveraging the best available knowledge without overstating the current level of certainty in our field.
Use of the Term "Unique"
The term "unique" seems out of place in this context. While every individual is indeed unique, science is fundamentally concerned with identifying general patterns and laws. It is these patterns that allow us to make disciplined, informed observations about people. The emphasis should be on understanding generalizable traits and behaviors, not just on individual uniqueness.
Psychometrics
The phrase “show sound psychometrics in the contexts within which assessment is occurring” is vague and unnecessarily convoluted. The focus should simply be on using appropriate psychometric tools tailored to the specific context of the assessment. This is a given in any reputable psychological practice.
Integration of Multiple Methods
While it is true that personality assessment typically involves integrating data from multiple methods and sources, there are instances where this is not feasible. Sometimes, we may have access to only one method. In such cases, it is the clinician’s responsibility to acknowledge the limitations of the available data and to make careful inferences.
Sensitivity to Contextual Factors
The statement about personality assessment being “sensitive to the contextual factors of people's lives” requires clarification. If this is to be included, it would be helpful to specify what is meant by “contextual factors” to avoid ambiguity.
In conclusion, I apologize for the hurried nature of these remarks. Given the tight timeline, I wanted to ensure that I provided feedback before the upcoming deadline on November 18th. Sincerely,
-consider adding "relating" to this list.
Also consider adding something about:
- aiming to link findings to meaningful implications for treatment, education, other interventions, etc.
-seeking to understand a person's vulnerabilities AND strengths
-offering (written, verbal) feedback to patient, family, treaters, etc.
with best wishes,
Pekka Koistinen
PA aims to be of benefit to client and clinician.
Invested? Should this not be: interested?
"...as an integrated evaluative judgment of the degree to which empirical evidence and theoretical rationales support the adequacy and appropriateness of inferences and actions based on test scores...
While the above four-point definition of Personality Assessment is succinct and broad in scope, my concern is the appeal to the shrine of 'empirical' and 'psychometrics'--these are essential, but are clinical interactive dimensions / processes and holistic interpretive aspects potentially over shadowed?
Psychological assessment is a relational situation in which a specialist ethically applies theoretical knowledge and psychological methods to the dynamic understanding of a person, child or adult, presenting difficulties at a given point in their development or life.
Psychological assessment is necessarily part of a holistic conception of people as autonomous persons in physical, emotional, intellectual, psychomotor and social state, or stage of development. They present themselves to the psychological assessment in all their complexity and uniqueness. The psychological assessment is therefore part of a multi-dimensional and dynamic perspective of the person, and requires from the psychologist
- in-depth knowledge of what a human being is
- reference to a coherent conceptual system to account for it,
- the use of reliable, evidence-based tools which scope and limitations they are aware of,
- diversified clinical experience.
Finally, the psychologist's work is always carried out within a strict ethical framework, which requires them to focus solely on the interests of the person (and not on his or her own interests, or those of an outside body).
Is it possible to clarify whether the intention is to capture both personality and psychopathology at normal and clinical ranges in the definition?
Or is the goal to intentionally exclude the psychopathology / disorder focus to keep the definition narrow?
Categories
Most Recent Posts