Prediction of adolescent aggression by childhood personality measures: A comparison of projective procedures, self-report tests, and behavior ratings

Abstract

Projective procedures, self-report measures, and teacher behavior ratings were compared as to which type of assessment best predicted adolescent aggressive behavior 6 years after they were administered. A questionnaire that assesses aggressive behavior was given to 125 adolescents in grades seven through twelve who had been administered a variety of projective, self-report, and teacher ratings of aggression 5 years earlier. Their parents were given the same questionnaire. Controlling for sex, age, and academic ability, the results indicated that children's scores on the projective measures predicted aggressive behaviors 5 years later. In addition, projective procedures were at least as valid as the other types of assessments in predicting aggressive behaviors. Results suggest that criticisms of projective procedures may be addressed with continued efforts to evaluate their validity.

Psychopathic traits in adolescence: a review

“…The evaluation was performed considering a pattern or a type of behavior, and by observing whether this pattern is maintained or is modified over time (Graybil & Blackwood, 1996;Patterson, 1993). The comparison between the ways of evaluating characteristics of violence was again discussed (Graybill & Blackwood, 1996) and compared through the scores for behavior, selfreported instruments and projective tests. In this particular study, the projective tests were more able to predict violent behavior, with up to 5 years of antecedence.…”

Psychological evaluation of refugee children: Contrasting results from play diagnosis and parental interviews

“…Assessment of personality constructs must then be made by indirect methods, such as clinicians’ teachers’ or parent’s reports. Many projective methods can be used meaningfully with children from an earlier age and may then be the only means of obtaining test data for personality constructs (see e.g., Graybill & Blackwood, 1996; O’Donnell & Curley, 1985).…”