Character and personality tests.

Abstract

Comprehensive reviews of character and personality tests have been given by Symonds (150), Murphy (106), and Watson (110,164,165). The following reviews deal with special areas; attitudes and opinions, Droba (35), Laswell, Sherman (137), Murphy (106); ratings, Bradshaw (18) ; physiological indices, Landis (77), Larson (79); introversion-extroversion, Bailey; religious education, Smith and Bathurst, Mayer (99); contributions to typology, Pfahler(123), Wertham(172); behavior observation, Thomas (153), Murphy (107) ; character tests, Hartshorne (58), Shuttleworth. May (98) and Olson emphasize the inadequacy of the trait idea, but suggest that behavior samples can be collected through proper control of situations and training of observers. Weils (170) stresses the connection which ought to exist between our measurement and some such objective as energetic, socialized conduct directed toward remote ends. Symonds (151) lists two hundred problems needing research. Bain contributes to our knowledge of reliability by analyzing questionnaire items which show much or little change. Lents and associates (83) compared five methods for evaluating test items, and decided that the use of the upper and lower third of a criterion group gave the best approach.Ratings have played a prominent role in the following studies:

The validity of personality questionnaires.

“…Since this article reviews only the literature on the validity of personality questionnaires, it might be well to mention here some of the surveys and bibliographic reviews which cover the general field of personality testing. These include studies by Allport (6); Allport and Vernon (10); Euros (40,41,42,43); Cattell (SO); Conklin (54,55); Darley and Anderson (64); Freeman (88); Guilford and Braley (103); Guilford (101); Hildreth (126); Horsch and Davis (129); Koos (159); Mailer (196,197,199,200); May, Hartshorne, and Welty (211,212,213); Murphy (223); Roback (250); Snyder (288); Symonds (301,303); Traxler (318,320,321,322); Watson (335,336,337,338,339); and the National Educational Association (358,359).…”