Diagnosing Personality and Conduct

Recurrent Personality Factors Based on Trait Ratings

“…Furthermore, as Cattell (1946) has pointed out, the trait concept does not preclude the concept of the whole person, since any person can be uniquely and adequately described by a combination of a number of independent traits or factors. Although earlier studies indicated personality trait ratings to be unreliable (low rater agreement), unstable (specific to the rating situation), and contaminated by a large general factor (halo), Symonds (1931) and AUport (1937) concluded that such deficiencies might be overcome by the use of fairly large groups of raters who have observed the subjects' day-today behavior over a considerable period of time, and by requiring the rating of several subjects on one trait at a time, rather than the rating of each subject on several traits at a time.…”

The Primary Personality Factors in Women Compared With Those in Men

“…Meanwhile, for clarity of discussion and reference, we have recognized the descriptive difference by calling this the E' factor. Four variables (16,9,5,18) identify this with the F factor in the parallel group of young men. The extra emphasis here on sociability versus aloofness, in variables 7 and 34, is shared with the fxtor pattern in the older men,2 and the factor here has a somewhat lower variance as in the older men.…”

The Influence of Labels and Positions in Rating Scales

“…In some instances, however, equally spaced options across the entire response continuum may not provide the desired properties in the measurements. For instance, Symonds (1931) recommended the use on evaluative rating scales of a set of labels that were packed with positive descriptions to overcome individuals' tendencies to be lenient in their description of others. For a 5-point rating scale, he recommended using the labels POOR, FAIR, GOOD, VERY GOOD, and EXCELLENT.…”

“…When the labels attached to the response options are selected to saturate one end of the response continuum, the meaning of the label and the meaning of the location in which the label is used on the continuum will be discrepant. For instance, if the labels are chosen to saturate the positive end of the continuum, such as those proposed by Guilford (1936) and Symonds (1931), positive labels will be placed in positions that normally connote neutral or even negative ratings. The rater must somehow weigh the importance of the position a,ad the label in deciding on a meaning of the options.…”