Wechsler Adult Performance Intelligence Scale

The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) is an intelligence test designed to measure
cognitive ability in adults and older adolescents. The original WAIS was published in
February 1955 by devid Wechsler, as a revision of the Wechsler Bellevue, intelligence scale,
released in 1939. It is currently in its fourth edition (WAIS IV) released in 2008 by person,
and is the most widely used IQ test, for both adults and older adolescents, in the world.

1. HISTORY
2. WECHSLER BELLEVUE INTELLIGENCE SCALE
 The point scale concept
 The non – verbal performance scale
3. WAIS
4. WAIS- R
5. WAIS-III
 Verbal IQ (VIQ)
 Performance IQ (PIQ)
6. WAIS –IV
 Indices and scales
 Subtests
 standardization
7. OTHER TEST VARIANTS AND USES

HISTORY

Wechsler’s scale is funded on his definition of intelligence, which he defined as …… “The

globle capacity of a person to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively
with his environment.” He believed that intelligence was made up of specific elements that
could be isolated, defined, and subsequently measured. However, these individual elements
were not entirely independent, but were all interrelated. His argument, in other words, is that
general intelligence is composed of various specific and interrelated functions or elements
that can be individually measured.

This theory different greatly from the binet scale which , in Wechsler s day , was
generally considered the supreme authority with regard to intelligence testing. A
drastically revised new version of the binet scale , released in 1937, received a great
deal of criticism from devid Wechsler .

 Wechsler was a very influential advocate for the concept of non-intellective

factors, and he felt that the 1937 binet scale did not do good job of
incorporating these factors into the scale.
 Wechsler did not agree with the idea of a single score that binet test give.
 Wechsler argued that binet scale items were not valid for adult test takers the
items were chosen specifically for use with children.
 The binet scales emphasis on speed, with timed takes scattered throughout the
scale, tended to unduly handicap older adults.
 Wechsler believed that “mental age normal clearly did not apply to adults.”
 Wechsler criticized the then existing binet scale because “it did not consider
that intellectual performance could deteriorate as a person grew older.
The many criticism of the 1937 binet test gave rise to the Wechsler Bellevue scale
that was released in 1939. While this scale has been revised many times, many of the
original concept and the performance scale concept.

WECHSLER BELLEVUE INTELLIGENCE SCALE

The Wechsler Bellevue tests were innovative in the 1930s because they

1. Gatherd tasks created for nonclinical purposes for administration as a “clinical test
battery “.
2. Used the point scale concept instead of the aup of age scale and
3. Included a non-verbal performance scale .
THE POINT SCALE CONCEPT

In the binet scales items were grouped according to age level. Each of these age levels were
composed of a group of tasks that could be passed by two thirds to three quarters of the
individuals in that level. This meant that items were not arranged according to content.
additionally, an individual taking a binet test would only receive credit if certain amount of
the tasks were completed. This meant that falling short just one task required for the credit
resulted in no credit at all.

The point scale concept drastically changed the way testing was done by assigning credits or
points to each item. This had two large effects. First, this allowed items to be grouped
according to content. Second, participants were able receive a set amount of points or credits
for each item passed. The result was a test that could be make different content areas with
both an overall score and a score for each content areas. In turn, this allowed for an analysis
to be made of an individual’s ability in a verity of content areas.

THE NON- VERBAL PERFORMANCE SCALE

The non-verbal performance scale was also a critical difference from binet scale. since the
early binet scale had been persistently and consistently criticized for its emphasis language
and verbal skills, Wechsler made an entire scale that allowed the measurement of non-verbal
intelligence. This become known as a performance scale. Essentially, this scale required a
subject to do something rather than just answer questions. This was an important
development as it attempted to overcome biases that were caused by language, culture, and
education. Further, this scale also provided an opportunity to observe a different type of
behavior because something physical was required. Clinician were able to observe how a
participant reacted to the longer interval of sustained effert, concentration, and attention that
the performance tasks required.

While the Wechsler Bellevue scale was the first to effectively use the performance scale , the
idea had been around for a while. The binet scale did have performance tasks and there were
entire tests that were considered supplement or alternative.

WAIS

The WAIS was initially created as a revision of the Wechsler Bellevue intelligence scale,
which was a battery of tests published by Wechsler in 1939. The WBIS was composed of
subtests that could be found in various ether intelligence tests of the time. Such as Robert
yarkes army testing program and the binet simon scale. The WAIS was first released in
February 1955 by devid Wechsler. Because the Wechsler tests included non-verbal items as
well as verbal items for all testtakers, and because the 1960 from of lewie termans Stanford
binet intelligence scales was carefully developed than previous. Form I of the WAIS
surpassed the Stanford binet tests in popularity by the 1960s.

WAIS –R

The WAIS –R a revised from of the WAIS, was released in 1981 and consisted of six verbal
and five performance subtests. The verbal tests were; information, comprehension,
arithmetic, digit spam, similarities, and vocabulary. The performance subtests were; picture
arrangement, picture completion, block design, object assembly, and digit symbol. A verbal
IQ, performance IQ and full-scale IQ were obtained.

This revised edition did not provide new validity date, used the data from the original WAIS;
however new normal were provided, carefully stratified.

The WAIS-III a subsequent revision of the WAIS and the WAIS- R was released in 1997. It
provided scores for verbal IQ, performance IQ and full-Scale IQ, along with four secondary
indices.

VERBAL IQ (VIQ)

Included seven tests and provided two subindexes; verbal comprehension and working
memory. The verbal comprehension index included the following tests

 Information
 Similarities
 vocabulary
The working memory index (WMI) included;
 Arithmetic
 Digit span

Letter- number sequencing and comprehension are not included in these indices, but are used
as substitutions for spoiled subtests within the WMI and VCI, respectively.

PERFORMANCE IQ (PIQ)
 Included six tests and it also provided two subindexes; perceptual organization and
processing speed.

The perceptual organization index (POI) included.

 Block design
 Matrix reasoning
 Picture completion

The processing speed index (PSI) included;

 Digit symbol-coding
 Symbol search

Two tests; picture arrangement and object assembly were not included in the indexes. Object
assembly is not included in the PIQ.

WAIS –IV

The current version of the test, the WAIS-IV, which was released in 2008, is composed of 10
core subtests and five supplemental subtests, with the10 core subtests comprising the full-
scale IQ. With the new WAIS -IV, the verbal/performance subtests from previous were
removed and replaced by the index score. The general ability index (GAI) was included,
which consists of the similarities, vocabulary and information subtests from the verbal
comprehension index and the block design, matrix reasoning and visual puzzles subtests from
the perceptual reasoning index. The GAI is clinically useful because it can be used as a
measure of cognitive abilities that are less vulnerable to impairments of processing and
working memory.

INCLUDING AND SCALE

There are four index score representing major components of intelligence;

 Verbal comprehension index (VCI)

 Perceptual reasoning index (PRI)
 Working memory index (WMI)
 Processing speed index (PSI)

Two broads are also generated, which can be used to summarize general intellectual abilities;
 Full scale IQ (FSIQ) based on the total combined performance of the VCI, PRI, WMI,
and PSI
 General abilitity index (GAI), based only on the six subtests that the VCI and PRI
comprise.
BINET KAMAT TEST

The Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales (or more commonly the Stanford–Binet) is an

individually administered intelligence test that was revised from the original Binet–Simon
Scale by Alfred Binet and Théodore Simon. It is in its fifth edition (SB5), which was released
in 2003.

It is a cognitive-ability and intelligence test that is used to diagnose developmental or

intellectual deficiencies in young children, in contrast to the Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale (WAIS). The test measures five weighted factors and consists of both verbal and
nonverbal subtests. The five factors being tested are knowledge, quantitative reasoning,
visual-spatial processing, working memory, and fluid reasoning.

The development of the Stanford–Binet initiated the modern field of intelligence testing and
was one of the first examples of an adaptive test. The test originated in France, then was
revised in the United States. It was initially created by the French psychologist Alfred Binet,
who, following the introduction of a law mandating universal education by the French
government, began developing a method of identifying "slow" children, so that they could be
placed in special education programs, instead of labelled sick and sent to the asylum. As
Binet indicated, case studies might be more detailed and helpful, but the time required to test
many people would be excessive. In 1916, at Stanford University, the psychologist Lewis
Terman released a revised examination that became known as the Stanford–Binet test.

As discussed by Fancher & Rutherford in 2012, the Stanford–Binet is a modified version

of the Binet–Simon Intelligence scale. The Binet–Simon scale was created by the
French psychologist Alfred Binet and his student Theodore Simon. Due to changing
education laws of the time, Binet had been requested by a government commission to
come up with a way to detect children who were falling behind developmentally and
in need of help. Binet believed that intelligence is malleable and that intelligence tests
would help target children in need of extra attention to advance their intelligence.

To create their test, Binet and Simon first created a baseline of intelligence. A wide range
of children were tested on a broad spectrum of measures in an effort to discover a
clear indicator of intelligence. Failing to find a single identifier of intelligence, Binet
 and Simon instead compared children in each category by age. The children's highest
levels of achievement were sorted by age and common levels of achievement
considered the normal level for that age. Because this testing method merely
compares a person's ability to the common ability level of others their age, the general
practices of the test can easily be transferred to test different populations, even if the
measures used are changed.

Reproduction of an item from the 1908 Binet–Simon intelligence scale, that shows three
pairs of pictures, and asks the tested child, "Which of these two faces is the prettier?"
Reproduced from the article "A Practical Guide for Administering the Binet–Simon
Scale for Measuring Intelligence" by J. W. Wallace Wallin in the December 1911
issue of the journal The Psychological Clinic (volume 5 number 7), public domain

One of the first intelligence tests, the Binet–Simon test quickly gained support in the
psychological community, many of whom further spread it to the public. Lewis M.
Terman, a psychologist at Stanford University, was one of the first to create a version
of the test for people in the United States, naming the localized version the Stanford–
Binet Intelligence Scale. Terman used the test not only to help identify children
with learning difficulties but also to find children and adults who had above average
levels of intelligence. In creating his version, Terman also tested additional methods
for his Stanford revision, publishing his first official version as The Measurement of
Intelligence: An Explanation of and a Complete Guide for the Use of the Stanford
Revision and Extension of the Binet–Simon Intelligence Scale (Fancher &
Rutherford, 2012) (Becker, 2003).

The original tests in the 1905 form include:

1. "Le Regard"
2. Prehension Provoked by a Tactile Stimulus
3. Prehension Provoked by a Visual Perception
4. Recognition of Food
5. Quest of Food Complicated by a Slight Mechanical Difficulty
6. Execution of Simple Commands and Imitation of Simple Gestures
7. Verbal Knowledge of Objects
8. Verbal Knowledge of Pictures
9. Naming of Designated Objects
10.Immediate Comparison of Two Lines of Unequal Lengths
11.Repetition of Three Figures
12.Comparison of Two Weights
13.Suggestibility
14.Verbal Definition of Known Objects
15.Repetition of Sentences of Fifteen Words
16.Comparison of Known Objects from Memory
17.Exercise of Memory on Pictures
18.Drawing a Design from Memory
19.Immediate Repetition of Figures
20.Resemblances of Several Known Objects Given from Memory
21.Comparison of Lengths
22.Five Weights to be Placed in Order
23.Gap in Weights
24.Exercise upon Rhymes
25.Verbal Gaps to be Filled
26.Synthesis of Three Words in One Sentence
27.Reply to an Abstract Question
28.Reversal of the Hands of a Clock
29.Paper Cutting
30.Definitions of Abstract Terms

Historical use

One hindrance to widespread understanding of the test is its use of a variety of different
measures. In an effort to simplify the information gained from the Binet–Simon test
into a more comprehensible and easier to understand form, German
psychologist William Stern created the well-known Intelligence Quotient (IQ). By
comparing the mental age, a child scored at to their biological age, a ratio is created to
show the rate of their mental progress as IQ. Terman quickly grasped the idea for his
Stanford revision with the adjustment of multiplying the ratios by 100 to make them
easier to read.

As also discussed by Leslie, in 2000, Terman was another of the main forces in spreading
intelligence testing in the United States (Becker, 2003). Terman quickly promoted the
 use of the Stanford–Binet for schools across the United States where it saw a high rate
of acceptance. Terman's work also had the attention of the U.S. government, who
recruited him to apply the ideas from his Stanford–Binet test for military recruitment
near the start of World War I. With over 1.7 million military recruits taking a version
of the test and the acceptance of the test by the government, the Stanford–Binet saw
an increase in awareness and acceptance (Fancher & Rutherford, 2012).

Given the perceived importance of intelligence and with new ways to measure
intelligence, many influential individuals, including Terman, began promoting
controversial ideas to increase the nation's overall intelligence. These ideas included
things such as discouraging individuals with low IQ from having children and
granting important positions based on high IQ scores. While there was significant
opposition, many institutions proceeded to adjust students' education based on their
IQ scores, often with a heavy influence on future career possibilities (Leslie, 2000).

Maud Merrill

Since the first publication in 1916, there have been four additional revised editions of the
Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales, the first of which was developed by Lewis
Terman. Over twenty years later, Maud Merrill was accepted into Stanford's
education program shortly before Terman became the head of the psychology
department. She completed both her master's degree and Ph.D. under Terman and
quickly became a colleague of his as they started the revisions of the second edition
together. There were 3,200 examinees, aged one and a half to eighteen years, ranging
in different geographic regions as well as socioeconomic levels in attempts to
comprise a broader normative sample (Roid & Barram, 2004). This edition
incorporated more objectified scoring methods, while placing less emphasis on recall
memory and including a greater range of nonverbal abilities (Roid & Barram, 2004)
compared to the 1916 edition.

When Terman died in 1956, the revisions for the third edition were well underway, and
Merrill was able to publish the final revision in 1960 (Roid & Barram, 2004). The use
of deviation IQ made its first appearance in third edition, however the use of the
mental age scale and ratio IQ were not eliminated. Terman and Merrill attempted to
calculate IQs with a uniform standard deviation while still maintaining the use of the
mental age scale by including a formula in the manual to convert the ratio IQs with
 means varying between age ranges and nonuniform standard deviations to IQs with a
mean of 100 and a uniform standard deviation of 16. However, it was later
demonstrated that very high scores occurred with much greater frequency than what
would be predicted by the normal curve with a standard deviation of 16, and scores in
the gifted range were much higher than those yielded by essentially every other major
test, so it was deemed that the ratio IQs modified to have a uniform mean and
standard deviation, referred to as "deviation IQs" in the manual of the third edition of
the Stanford–Binet (Terman & Merrill, 1960), could not be directly compared to
scores on "true" deviation IQ tests, such as the Wechsler Intelligence Scales, and the
later versions of the Stanford–Binet, as those tests compare the performance of
examinees to their own age group on a normal distribution (Ruf, 2003). While new
features were added, there were no newly created items included in this revision.
Instead, any items from the 1937 form that showed no substantial change in difficulty
from the 1930s to the 1950s were either eliminated or adjusted (Roid & Barram,
2004).

Robert Thorndike was asked to take over after Merrill's retirement. With the help of
Elizabeth Hagen and Jerome Sattler, Thorndike produced the fourth edition of the
Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale in 1986. This edition covers the ages two through
twenty-three and has some considerable changes compared to its predecessors
(Graham & Naglieri, 2003). This edition was the first to use the fifteen subtests with
point scales in place of using the previous age scale format. In an attempt to broaden
cognitive ability, the subtests were grouped and resulted in four area scores, which
improved flexibility for administration and interpretation (Youngstrom, Glutting, &
Watkins, 2003). The fourth edition is known for assessing children that may be
referred for gifted programs. This edition includes a broad range of abilities, which
provides more challenging items for those in their early adolescent years, whereas
other intelligence tests of the time did not provide difficult enough items for the older
children (Laurent, Swerdlik, & Ryburn, 1992).

Gale Roid published the most recent edition of the Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale.
Roid attended Harvard University where he was a research assistant to David
McClelland. McClelland is well known for his studies on the need for achievement.
While the fifth edition incorporates some of the classical traditions of these scales,
there were several significant changes made.
 Timeline

 April 1905: Development of Binet–Simon Test announced at a conference in Rome

 June 1905: Binet–Simon Intelligence Test introduced
 1908 and 1911: New Versions of Binet–Simon Intelligence Test
 1916: Stanford–Binet First Edition by Terman
 1937: Second Edition by Terman and Merrill
 1960: Third Edition by Merrill (form L-M)
 1973: Third Edition by Merrill (1937 norms were re-normed)
 1986: Fourth Edition by Thorndike, Hagen, and Sattler
 2003: Fifth Edition by Roid

Just as it was used when Binet first developed the IQ test, the Stanford–Binet Intelligence
Scale: Fifth Edition (SB5) is based in the schooling process to assess intelligence. It
continuously and efficiently assesses all levels of ability in individuals with a broader range
in age. It is also capable of measuring multiple dimensions of abilities (Ruf, 2003).

The SB5 can be administered to individuals as early as two years of age. There are ten
subsets included in this revision including both verbal and nonverbal domains. Five factors
are also incorporated in this scale, which are directly related to Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC)
hierarchical model of cognitive abilities. These factors include fluid reasoning, knowledge,
quantitative reasoning, visual-spatial processing, and working memory (Bain & Allin, 2005).
Many of the familiar picture absurdities, vocabulary, memory for sentences, and verbal
absurdities still remain from the previous editions (Janzen, Obrzut, & Marusiak, 2003),
however with more modern artwork and item content for the revised fifth edition.

For every verbal subtest that is used, there is a nonverbal counterpart across all factors. These
nonverbal tasks consist of making movement responses such as pointing or assembling
manipulatives (Bain & Allin, 2005). These counterparts have been included to address
language-reduced assessments in multicultural societies. Depending on age and ability,
administration can range from fifteen minutes to an hour and fifteen minutes.

The fifth edition incorporated a new scoring system, which can provide a wide range of
information such as four intelligence score composites, five factor indices, and ten subtest
scores. Additional scoring information includes percentile ranks, age equivalents, and a
change-sensitive score (Janzen, Obrzut, & Marusiak, 2003). Extended IQ scores and gifted
composite scores are available with the SB5 in order to optimize the assessment for gifted
programs (Ruf, 2003). To reduce errors and increase diagnostic precision, scores are obtained
electronically through the use of computers now.

The standardization sample for the SB5 included 4,800 participants varying in age, sex,
race/ethnicity, geographic region, and socioeconomic level (Bain & Allin, 2005).

Reliability

Several reliability tests have been performed on the SB5 including split-half reliability,
standard error of measurement, plotting of test information curves, test-retest stability, and
inter-scorer agreement. On average, IQ scores for this scale have been found quite stable
across time (Janzen, Obrzut, & Marusiak, 2003). Internal consistency was tested by split-half
reliability and was reported to be substantial and comparable to other cognitive batteries
(Bain & Allin, 2005). The median interscorer correlation was .90 on average (Janzen, Obrzut,
& Marusiak, 2003). The SB5 has also been found to have great precision at advanced levels
of performance meaning that the test is especially useful in testing children for giftedness
(Bain & Allin, 2005). There have only been a small amount of practice effects and familiarity
of testing procedures with retest reliability; however, these have proven to be insignificant.
Read ministration of the SB5 can occur in a six-month interval rather than one year due to the
small mean differences in reliability (Bain & Allin, 2005).

Validity

Content validity has been found based on the professional judgments Roid received
concerning fairness of items and item content as well as items concerning the assessment of
giftedness (Bain & Allin, 2005). With an examination of age trends, construct validity was
supported along with empirical justification of a more substantial g loading for the SB5
compared to previous editions. The potential for a variety of comparisons, especially for
within or across factors and verbal/nonverbal domains, has been appreciated with the scores
received from the SB5 (Bain & Allin, 2005).

Score classification

The test publisher includes suggested score classifications in the test manual.
 Stanford–Binet Fifth Edition (SB5) classification[4]

IQ Range ("deviation IQ") IQ Classification

145–160 Very gifted or highly advanced

130–144 Gifted or very advanced

120–129 Superior

110–119 High average

90–109 Average

80–89 Low average

70–79 Borderline impaired or delayed

55–69 Mildly impaired or delayed

40–54 Moderately impaired or delayed

The classifications of scores used in the Fifth Edition differ from those used in earlier
versions of the test.

Subtests and factors

 Fluid Quantitative Visual-spatial Working
Knowledge
reasoning reasoning processing memory

Non-verbal Form board

Delayed
quantitative and form
Early reasoning Vocabulary response
reasoning (non- patterns
(non-verbal)
verbal)
(non-verbal)

Procedural
Verbal Verbal quantitative Position and Block span
knowledge (non-
absurdities reasoning direction (non-verbal)
verbal)

Picture
Verbal Memory for
absurdities (non-
analogies sentences
verbal)

Object series
matrices (non- Last word
verbal)

Since its inception, the Stanford–Binet has been revised several times. The test is in its fifth
edition, called the Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition, or SB5. According to the
publisher's website, "The SB5 was normed on a stratified random sample of 4,800 individuals
that matches the 2000 U.S. Census". By administering the Stanford–Binet test to large
numbers of individuals selected at random from different parts of the United States, it has
been found that the scores approximate a normal distribution. The revised edition of the
Stanford–Binet over time has devised substantial changes in the way the tests are presented.
The test has improved when looking at the introduction of a more parallel form and more
demonstrative standards. For one, a non-verbal IQ component is included in the tests whereas
in the past, there was only a verbal component. It evolved to have equally balanced verbal
and non-verbal content. It is also more animated than the other tests, providing the test-takers
with more colourful artwork, toys and manipulatives. This allows the test to have a higher
range in the age of the test takers. This test is purportedly useful in assessing the intellectual
capabilities of people ranging from young children all the way to young adults. However, the
test has come under criticism for not being able to compare people of different age categories,
since each category gets a different set of tests. Furthermore, very young children tend to do
poorly on the test because they lack the ability to concentrate long enough to finish it.

Uses for the test include clinical and neuropsychological assessment ,educational placement,
compensation evaluations, career assessment, adult neuropsychological treatment, forensics,
and research on aptitude. Various high-IQ societies also accept this test for admission into
their ranks; for example, the Triple Nine Society accepts a minimum qualifying score of 151
for Form L or M, 149 for Form L-M if taken in 1986 or earlier, 149 for SB-IV, and 146 for
SB-V; in all cases the applicant must have been at least 16 years old at the date of the
test. Intertel accepts a score of 135 on SB5 and 137 on Form L-M.[6]

Cattell Infant Intelligence Scale

The Flynn effect

Military psychology

Intelligence quotient

IQ classification
Malin's Intelligence Scale for Indian Children

Introduction:
Malin's has been adapted from the American test WISC developed by Dr. David Wechsler.
The Indian Scale has been constructed by Dr Arthur J. Malin of Nagpur. During adaptation,
an almost total revision had to be made of the test, especially of the culturally biased verbal
items. So, the test was named as Intelligence Scale for Indian Children- ISIC or MISIC.
English is the only language that applies universally through India; hence WISC has adapted
in English for English Speaking children in India. Later it was also adapted in Hindi and
Marathi as India is a country dominated by many regional languages.
MISIC is an intelligence test for children from the ages of 6 to 15 years 11 months. It is
administered individually and takes about 2 to 2-1/2 hours. The test comprises of 12 subtests
divided into two groups, Verbal and Performance. Verbal Scale consists of 6 subtests and
Performance Scale consists of 5 subtests.
Verbal Scale:
1. Information Test: The test consists of questions about factual knowledge of persons,
places, and common phenomena. It has total of 30 questions. Questions 1-5 are used for
children below 8 years old or suspected mental defects. Each item is scored 1 or 0. The
subject above 8 years is given credits for questions 1-5 directly, if the subject passes items 6,
7 & 8. Discontinue the test after 5 consecutive failures
2. General Comprehension Test This test consists of questions about certain practices and
behaviour under certain situations. It measures conventional knowledge and knowledge of
social appropriateness. It has total 14 questions. The test is discontinued after 3 consecutive
failures. Each item is scored from 0-2. Items 1-5 are scored 2 points if the subject takes
personal responsibility, and I point if the subjects know what is to be done, but the
responsibility is shirked away, for item 6-14, 2 points are given when the subject gives 2
good reasons, and I point when the subject gives one reason.
3. Arithmetic Test: The test consists of questions based on a simple mathematical calculation
which are solved mentally. Problems 1-3 are for the subjects below 8 years or suspected
mental defectives. Discontinue after 3 consecutive failures. Each item is scored 1 or 0. Credit
is given to the subject for the first 3 items if the subject above 8 years solves the item 4 and 5
correctly.
4. Analogy & Similarity test:
Analogy: The test consists of 4 incomplete sentences based on analogies that the subject has
to complete. The test is for subjects below 8 years old. Each correct analogy is given a score
of 2.

Example Lemon is sour, but sugar is...........

Similarity: The test consists of questions where the subject has to find the similarity between
the two things. It measures verbal concept formation. This test is for subjects above 8 years.
Discontinue the test after 3 consecutive failures or return to the analogy. Each item is scored
from 0-2, depending on the answer. If the subject answers the 3 items correctly in similarity,
the subject is given the credit for 4 analogies.
5. Vocabulary Test- The test consists of the question that measures the subject's general
intelligences. It reflects the subject's breadth of experience and ideas developed over the
years. The test has 40 items. Discontinue the test after 5 consecutive failures. Each item is
scored from 0 to 2. Except item 1-6 which are scored as 0 or 2. Subject can start directly from
10th item. The subject is credited 2 points directly for the previous 9 items if he she gives 2-
point definition for 10th 14th items.
6. Digit Span Test- In this test the subject is told a sequence of number verbally. The subject
is supposed to repeat the number in the same order. The test is divided into 2 types. They are:
Digit Span Forward-the digits are repeated as they are called out. Digit Span Backward-the
digits are repeated in the reverse order. The score of the test is the highest number of digits
repeated without error, both forward and backward digits together.
Performance Scale:
1. Picture Completion Test- The test consists of twenty pictures in which some part of each
picture is missing. The subject is supposed to tell which part of the picture is missing. The
subject gets fifteen seconds to examine each picture. The test is discontinued after four
failures Scoring-One point is given for each correct response except for last five pictures
where an extra bonus score is credited if at least three pictures of the last five are correct.
2. Block Design Test- The test consists of 7 coloured blocks and a booklet with pictures of
the block arranged according to specific geometric designs. The subject has to arrange the
blocks according to the design shown in the picture. The task requires concept formation.
Scoring- the subject is given four points plus bonus according to the table for design 1 to 7.
No points are given for the incomplete design.
3. Object Assembly- This test consists of puzzles that the subject has to rearrange in
meaningful design. It requires visual-motor co-ordination, plan fullness and concept
formation. The test has four puzzles. They are manikin, horse, face and auto. Scoring Marc
For perfect performance, 4 points are rewarded or bonus. 3 points if legs are interchanged or
inverted. 2 points if legs or arms are omitted. I point if the only trunk is correct.
Horse: Perfect performance is rewarded 6 points or honus 5 points if the only stomach is
inverted 4 points if the midpiece is omitted or legs interchanged. 3 points if the midpiece is
inverted and legs interchanged. 2 points if midpiece or leg is omitted. I point is given for
every two pieces joined correctly.
Face: Perfect performance is awarded 6 points or bonus. 5 points if eyes are inverted or
hairpieces omitted. 4 points if mouth and chin omitted. 3 points if large half (2 pics) are
omitted. I point if large half and hair are omitted. point is given for each proper joint separate
or joined to the whole Auto Perfect performance is given 6 points or a bonus. 5 points if the
door is inverted or reversed. 4 points for omsitting pieces 4 & 5 or omitting piece 7. 3 points
for omitting 7 and inverting or reversing piece 4, also omitting pieces 4, 5, 7.1 point is given
for each proper joint.
4. Coding-The test consists of certain symbols that are paired with numbers or shapes. The
subject has to learn them and pair with the appropriate corresponding numbers. Concentration
and speed of work are important factors in this test. The test has two parts. Coding A&
Coding B Coding A: this part is for subjects under 8 years or suspected mental defects. The
test should be completed in 120 seconds. The score is the number of designs completed in
that time. (Excluding samples) If the subject completes the test before time bonus point is
given. Coding B: this part is for subjects above 8 years. This section has to be completed in
120 seconds. I point is given for each correct response
5. Mazes. The test requires the subject to trace through the maze and reach the end point. The
test has 5 mazes which have to be completed in the given time limit Scoring- maze A, B, C
are given 2 points if solved without emur. 1 point if completed with 2 errors. Mazes 1-5 are
given 3 points without error, 2 points if one error is committed, 1 point if two errors
committed and 0 points when the subject passes the maximum allowed error
Psychometric properties:
Reliability. -MISIC was established with the test-retest method and yielded a Pearson's
Product Moment correlation coefficient of 0.91 for full-scale 10 result
Validity - MISIC established concurrent as well as congruent validity. The former was
established from school ranking whereas later was obtained from an adapied version of
California short-form test of Mental Maturity for the upper age level and from the good
enough Draw a Man test for the lower age level. Both yielded a coefficient of 63.
Norms - Indian noms are based on percentile points which were converted into 10s by
Thomson formula. Using this formula anchor 10s were obtained on the basis of the standard
deviation of 15 10.
When the 10s were plotted it gave a platy kurtic graph skewed to the right. To make the
graph normal two modifications were made, hypothetical 5% was added to the lower second
and third standard deviation and some other modifications were made at the other extreme
too Most of the raw score fell under 16th percentile to 84th percentile; this made the
95thpercentile a very high scoring norm. The abnormality of the graph was found to be due to
2 reasons, lack of subnormal cases and lack of extra normal cases.
Scoring of Malin's Intelligence Scale for Indian Children (MISIC) For scoring the test, the
raw score of all the subtests is totalled and converted into the Test Quotients (TQs) by means
of the 'T table' in the manual. After converting into TOs, the average of each group has to be
added and found out separately. To obtain full-scale IQ both the Verbal & Performance test
totals are added and then divided for the average. If only verbal group of TQs are obtained
they can be balanced by adding 6% of the TQs.
Point Scale
MISIC uses the concept of point scale. All the items of a given type are grouped together in
the increasing order of difficulty. The point or raw score of each subtest are totalled and
converted into TQs, which are actually IQs. The subtests TQs are then added and group
averaged and full scale is similarly obtained.
Standardization of sample:
Sample Size- for standardization purpose over 1200 children were given full individual tests
during the past 6 years and over 3000 were sampled in subtest trial runs. Average of about 90
samples were used for each level including boys and girls in a ratio of 20:30. Age norms are
based on a 12-month interval. Regional Norms- For the English version, samples were taken
from Nagpur, Mumbai, Shimla, Mangalore & New Delhi. For Marathi and Hindi versions,
samples were taken from Nagpur alone.
Application:
Used as a tool in the educational setting as well as clinical setting Helps teachers and parents
in guiding students for educational and vocational planning Used to diagnose learning
disabilities in students. To identify children with ADHD problem Used to identify talented
and gifted students, and also mentally challenged students Used in identifying students
cognitive strengths and weaknesses. Used in tracking intellectual development.
The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ)

The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) is a widely used personality assessment tool
developed by psychologists Hans Eysenck and Sybil Eysenck. It measures an individual's
personality traits based on the Eysenck’s hierarchical model of personality. EPQ is the result
of many years of development work. It was designed to give rough and ready measure of
three important personality dimensions: Psychoticism, Extraversion and Neuroticism. Each of
these three traits at measured by means of 100 questions, carefully selected after lengthy item
analysis a factor analysis. The earlier history of the development of inventories for the
purpose of measuring these three traits have been reviewed in The Structure of Human
Personality, and the detailed description of the actual derivation of the scale here presented
has also been published.
SCALES
Psychoticism/Tough-Mindedness
High P scores display tendencies to developing psychotic disorders while at the same time
falling short of actual psychotic conditions. People with high P scores are inclined toward
being cruel, inhumane, socially indifferent, hostile, aggressive, not considerate of danger,
insular, glacial, and intolerant. They show a propensity towards making trouble for others,
belittling, acting disruptively, and lacking in empathy.
The term psychoticism is psychiatric in nature, and to avoid the immediate conclusion
that high scores are psychologically disturbed, the more euphemistic term, tough-
mindedness, is generally preferred since it serves to emphasize the developmental stages
of pathology rather than existing conditions.
Neuroticism
High N scores indicate strong emotional lability and overactivity. People with high scores
tend to be emotionally over responsive, and encounter difficulties in calming down. Such
people complain of vague somatic upsets, and report many worries, anxieties, and
irritating emotional feelings. They may develop neurotic disorders when under stress,
which fall short of actual neurotic collapses. High scores do not preclude such people
functioning adequately in the family and work situations.
Extraversion-Introversion
High E scores indicate extraversion, and individuals who score high tend to be outgoing,
impulsive, uninhibited, have many social contacts, and often take part in group activities.
Typically, the extravert is highly social, likes gatherings, has many friends, needs to have
people to talk to and dislikes solitary pursuits such as reading, studying, and
contemplation. Instead, the typical extravert prefers excitement, likes to take chances,
often acts on the spur of the moment, and generally is quite active. Such a person may be
fond of practical jokes and usually has an answer to anything.
By contrast, the introvert tends to be quiet, retiring and studious. The typical introvert is
reserved and distant except to intimate friends, tends to plan and usually distrusts acting
on impulse. Such people prefer a well-arranged existence, keep their feelings well
controlled, and are more passive than aggressive. Generally reliable although somewhat
pessimistic, typical introverts seldom lose their temper and tend to place great value on
ethical standards.
These three dimensions are conceived of as being quite independent; thus, all the
theoretically possible combinations of scores may in fact be observed.
Lie Scale
This scale is included to determine the validity of responses. A high score demonstrates
the tendency to "fake good".
INSTRUCTION PROCEDURE:
EPQ is a self-administering inventory and may be administered individually as well as in
group. The instruction is printed in simple English language on the test form, which is to
be read by test administrator and the tested. The instruction procedure may be understand
as, “This booklet contains some practical situation that need you may come across in your
daily life and particularly at a situation when you are put to test. Some possible reaction
to each of these situations has also been given below it.”
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire - Revised (EPQ) consisting of 90 questions was
provided to the subject. The subject was asked him to provide his response to each
question by putting (X) mark in the box following “Yes” or “No”. It should be
emphasized that there are no right and wrong responses to the situations. It takes 30
minutes to complete the self-administered scale.
USES
The EPQ-R has been shown to have good reliability and validity. It has been used in a
variety of research settings, including clinical, educational, and occupational settings.
The EPQ-R is a useful tool for assessing personality. It can be used to understand
individual differences in personality, to diagnose psychological disorders, and to make
decisions about educational and occupational placement.
STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS
Here are some of the strengths of the EPQ-R:
 It is a well-established and widely used personality test.
 It has good reliability and validity.
 It is relatively short and easy to administer.
 It can be used with a variety of populations.
Here are some of the limitations of the EPQ-R:
 It is a self-report measure, which means that it is subject to response bias.
 It does not measure all aspects of personality.
 It may not be appropriate for use with certain populations, such as people with low
literacy skills.
Overall, the EPQ-R is a valuable tool for assessing personality. It is important to be aware
of its strengths and limitations when using it.
16 PERSONALITY FACTORS

The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) is a self-report personality

test developed over several decades of empirical research by Raymond B. Cattell, Maurice
Tatsuoka and Herbert Eber. The 16PF provides a measure of personality and can also be used
by psychologists, and other mental health professionals, as a clinical instrument to help
diagnose psychiatric disorders, and help with prognosis and therapy planning. The 16PF can
also provide information relevant to the clinical and counselling process, such as an
individual's capacity for insight, self-esteem, cognitive style, internalization of standards,
openness to change, capacity for empathy, level of interpersonal trust, quality of attachments,
interpersonal needs, attitude toward authority, reaction toward dynamics of power, frustration
tolerance, and coping style. Thus, the 16PF instrument provides clinicians with a normal-
range measurement of anxiety, adjustment, emotional stability and behavioural problems.
Clinicians can use 16PF results to identify effective strategies for establishing a working
alliance, to develop a therapeutic plan, and to select effective therapeutic interventions or
modes of treatment. It can also be used within other areas of psychology, such as career and
occupational selection.

Beginning in the 1940s, Cattell used several techniques including the new statistical
technique of common factor analysis applied to the English-language trait lexicon to
elucidate the major underlying dimensions within the normal personality sphere. This method
takes as its starting point the matrix of inter-correlations between these variables in an
attempt to uncover the underlying source traits of human personality. Cattell found that
personality structure was hierarchical, with both primary and secondary stratum level
traits. At the primary level, the 16PF measures 16 primary trait constructs, with a version of
the Big Five secondary traits at the secondary level. These higher-level factors emerged from
factor-analysing the 16 x 16 intercorrelation matrix for the sixteen primary factors
themselves. The 16PF yields scores on primary and second-order "global" traits, thereby
allowing a multilevel description of each individual's unique personality profile. A listing of
these trait dimensions and their description can be found below. Cattell also found a third-
stratum of personality organization that comprised just two overarching factors.

The measurement of normal personality trait constructs is an integral part of Cattell's

comprehensive theory of intrapersonal psychological variables covering individual
differences in cognitive abilities, normal personality traits, abnormal (psychopathological)
personality traits, dynamic motivational traits, mood states, and transitory emotional
states which are all taken into account in his behavioural specification/prediction
equation. The 16PF has also been translated into over 30 languages and dialects and is widely
used internationally.

Cattell and his co-workers also constructed downward extensions of the 16PF – parallel
personality questionnaires designed to measure corresponding trait constructs in younger age
ranges, such as the High School Personality Questionnaire (HSPQ) – now the Adolescent
Personality Questionnaire (APQ) for ages 12 to 18 years, the Children's Personality
Questionnaire (CPQ), the Early School Personality Questionnaire (ESPQ), as well as the
Preschool Personality Questionnaire (PSPQ).
Cattell also constructed (T-data) tests of cognitive abilities such as the Comprehensive
Ability Battery (CAB) – a multidimensional measure of 20 primary cognitive abilities, as
well as measures of non-verbal visuo-spatial abilities, such as the three scales of the Culture-
Fair Intelligence Test (CFIT), In addition, Cattell and his colleagues constructed objective (T-
data) measures of dynamic motivational traits including the Motivation Analysis Test
(MAT), the School Motivation Analysis Test (SMAT), as well as the Children's Motivation
Analysis Test (CMAT). As for the mood state domain, Cattell and his colleagues constructed
the Eight State Questionnaire (8SQ), a self-report (Q-data) measure of eight clinically
important emotional/mood states, labeled Anxiety, Stress, Depression, Regression, Fatigue,
Guilt, Extraversion, and Arousal.

The most recent edition of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF), released in
1993, is the fifth edition (16PF5e) of the original instrument. The self-report instrument was
first published in 1949; the second and third editions were published in 1956 and 1962,
respectively; and the five alternative forms of the fourth edition were released between 1967
and 1969.

The goal of the fifth edition revision in 1993 was to:

 update, improve, and simplify the language used in the test items;
 simplify the answer format;
 develop new validity scales;
 improve the psychometric properties of the test, including new reliability and validity
data; and
 develop a new standardization sample (of 10,000 people) to reflect the current U.S.
Census population.
The 16PF Fifth Edition contains 185 multiple-choice items which are written at a fifth-grade
reading level. Of these items, 76% were from the four previous 16PF editions, although many
of them were re-written to simplify or update the language. The item content typically sounds
non-threatening and asks simple questions about daily behaviour, interests, and opinions.

Item format

A characteristic of the 16PF items is that, rather than asking respondents to self-assess their
personality as some instruments do (e.g., "I am a warm and friendly person; I am not a
worrier; I am an even-tempered person."), they tend instead to ask about daily, concrete
situations, e.g.:

 When I find myself in a boring situation, I usually "tune out" and daydream about other
things. True/False.
 When a bit of tact and convincing is needed to get people moving, I'm usually the one
who does it. True/False.
Cattell argued that self-ratings relate to self-image, and are affected by self-awareness, and
defensiveness about one's actual traits. The 16PF provides scores on 16 primary personality
scales and five global personality scales, all of which are bi-polar (both ends of each scale
have a distinct, meaningful definition). The instrument also includes three validity scales:

 a bi-polar Impression Management (IM) scale,

 an Acquiescence (ACQ) scale, and
 an Infrequency (INF) scale.
The Impression Management (IM) scale is a bipolar scale with high scores reflecting a
preponderance of socially desirable responses and low scores reflecting a preponderance of
socially undesirable responses. Possible reasons for an extremely high Impression
Management score include: the examinee may actually behave in highly socially desirable
ways, and responses are accurate self-descriptions; responses reflect an unconscious
distortion consistent with the examinee's self-image but not with their behaviour; or
deliberate self-presentation as behaving in a highly socially desirable manner. A low
impression management score suggests an unusual willingness to admit undesirable attributes
or behaviours and can occur when an examinee is unusually self-critical, discouraged, or
under stress.

The Acquiescence (ACQ) scale's purpose is to index the degree to which the examinee agreed
with items regardless of what was being asked. A high score might indicate that the examinee
misunderstood the item content, responded randomly, has an unclear self-image, or had a
"yea-saying" response style.

The Infrequency (INF) scale comprises the most statistically infrequent responses on the test,
which are all middle (b) responses and appear in the test booklet with a question mark. A
score above the 95th percentile may indicate that the examinee had trouble reading or
comprehending the questions, responded randomly, experienced consistent indecisiveness
about the a or c response choice, or tried to avoid making the wrong impression by choosing
the middle answer rather than one of the more definitive answers.

Administration

Administration of the test takes about 35–50 minutes for the paper-and-pencil version and
about 30 minutes by computer. The test instructions are simple and straightforward and the
test is un-timed; thus, the test is generally self-administrable and can be used in either an
individual or a group setting. The 16PF test was designed for adults at least age 16 and older,
but there are also parallel tests for various younger age ranges (e.g., the 16PF Adolescent
Personality Questionnaire).

The 16PF Questionnaire has been translated into more than 30 languages and dialects. Thus
the test can be administered in different languages, scored based on either local, national, or
international normative samples, and computerized interpretive reports provided in about 23
different languages. The test has generally been culturally adapted (rather than just translated)
in these countries, with local standardization samples plus reliability and validity information
collected locally and presented in individual manuals.

Scoring

The test can be hand-scored using a set of scoring keys, or computer-scored by mailing-in or
faxing-in the answer sheet to the publisher IPAT. There is also a software system that can be
used to administer, score, and provide reports on the test results directly in the professional's
office; and an Internet-based system that can also provide administration, scoring, and reports
in a range of different languages.

After the test has been administered there is a total score computed from each of the 16
personality factors. These totals have been created in a way to correlate to the sten
scale. Scores on the 16PF are presented on a 10-point scale, or standard-ten scale. The sten
scale has a mean of 5.5 and a standard deviation of 2, with scores below 4 considered low and
scores above 7 considered high. The sten scales are bipolar, meaning that each end of the
scale has a distinct definition and meaning. Because bipolar scales are designated with "high"
or "low" for each factor, a high score should not be considered to reflect a positive
personality characteristic and a low score should not be considered to reflect a negative
personality characteristic.

Interpretation

Cattell and Schuerger provided six steps that outline how they recommend interpreting the
results of the 16PF:

1. Consider the context of the assessment.

2. Evaluate the Response Style Indexes by first checking responses on Factor B, and
then looking at scores on the Infrequency, Impression Management, and
Acquiescence scales.
3. Evaluate the Global Scale scores.
4. Evaluate the Primary Scales in the context of the Global Scales
5. Consider scale interactions
6. Integrate 16PF results in relation to the assessment question
There are about a dozen computer-generated interpretive reports that can be used to help
interpret the test for different purposes, for example:

 Career Development Report

 Karson Clinical Report
 Cattell Comprehensive Personality Interpretation
 Teamwork Development Report,
 Management Potential Report,
 Security Selection Report
 Leadership Coaching Report
There are also many books that help with test interpretation, for example,

The 16PF traits are also included in the Psychological Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ),
which combines measures of both normal and abnormal personality traits into one test

Below is a table outlining the personality traits measured by the 16PF Questionnaire.

Descriptors of low range Primary factor Descriptors of high range

Warm, outgoing, attentive to

Impersonal, distant, cool, reserved, Warmth
others, kindly, easygoing,
detached, formal, aloof (A)
participating, likes people

Concrete-thinking, less intelligent, Reasoning Abstract-thinking, more

lower general mental capacity, intelligent, bright, higher general
unable to handle abstract problems (B) mental capacity, fast-learner

Reactive emotionally, changeable, Emotional

Emotionally stable, adaptive,
affected by feelings, emotionally Stability
mature, faces reality calmly
less stable, easily upset (C)

Deferential, cooperative, avoids

Dominant, forceful, assertive,
conflict, submissive, humble, Dominance
aggressive, competitive, stubborn,
obedient, easily led, docile, (E)
bossy
accommodating

Lively, animated, spontaneous,

Serious, restrained, prudent, Liveliness
enthusiastic, happy-go-lucky,
taciturn, introspective, silent (F)
cheerful, expressive, impulsive

Rule- Rule-conscious, dutiful,

Expedient, nonconforming,
Consciousness conscientious, conforming,
disregards rules, self-indulgent
(G) moralistic, staid, rule-bound

Shy, threat-sensitive, timid, Social Boldness Socially bold, venturesome, thick-

hesitant, intimidated (H) skinned, uninhibited

Utilitarian, objective,
Sensitivity Sensitive, aesthetic, sentimental,
unsentimental, tough-minded, self-
(I) tender-minded, intuitive, refined
reliant, no-nonsense, rough

Trusting, unsuspecting, accepting, Vigilance Vigilant, suspicious, sceptical,

unconditional, easy (L) distrustful, oppositional

Grounded, practical, prosaic, Abstract, imaginative,

Abstractedness
solution oriented, steady, absentminded, impractical,
(M)
conventional absorbed in ideas

Forthright, genuine, artless, open, Private, discreet, nondisclosing,

Privateness
guileless, naive, unpretentious, shrewd, polished, worldly, astute,
(N)
involved diplomatic
 Self-assured, unworried, Apprehensive, self-doubting,
Apprehension
complacent, secure, free of guilt, worried, guilt-prone, insecure,
(O)
confident, self-satisfied worrying, self-blaming

Traditional, attached to familiar, Openness to Open to change, experimental,

conservative, respecting traditional Change liberal, analytical, critical,
ideas (Q1) freethinking, flexibility

Group-oriented, affiliative, a joiner Self-Reliance Self-reliant, solitary, resourceful,

and follower dependent (Q2) individualistic, self-sufficient

Tolerates disorder, unexacting, Perfectionistic, organized,

flexible, undisciplined, lax, self- Perfectionism compulsive, self-disciplined,
conflict, impulsive, careless of (Q3) socially precise, exacting will
social rules, uncontrolled power, control, self-sentimental

Tense, high-energy, impatient,

Relaxed, placid, tranquil, torpid, Tension
driven, frustrated, over-wrought,
patient, composed low drive (Q4)
time-driven

Primary Factors and Descriptors in Cattell's 16 Personality Factor Model (Adapted from
Conn & Rieke, 1994).

Relationship to five factors model:

In the Fourth and Fifth Editions of the 16PF, there were five global factors that seem to
correspond fairly closely to the "Big Five personality traits" The Big Five (BF) trait
of Openness seems to be related to 16PF Openness/Tough-mindedness, The BF trait
of Conscientiousness to the 16PF Self-Control, the BF Extraversion to the 16PF
Extraversion, the BF Agreeableness/Dis-Agreeableness to the 16PF
Independence/Accommodation, and the BF Neuroticism to the 16PF Anxiety. In fact, the
development of the Big-Five factors began in 1963 with W.T. Norman factor-analysing
responses to the same items as the 16PF, replicating Cattell's work and suggested that five
factors would be sufficient.

However, one big technical difference between Cattell's five Global Factors and popular five-
factor models was Cattell's insistence on using oblique rotation in the factor analysis
whereas Goldberg and Costa & McCrae used orthogonal rotation in their factor analysis.
Oblique rotation allows the factors to correlate with each other, whereas orthogonal rotation
restricts the factors from correlating with each other. Although personality traits are thought
to be correlated, using orthogonal factor analysis makes the factors easier to understand and
to work on statistically in research. This is one of the reasons the Big-Five traits have
definitions that are different from the 16PF global factors. For example, as seen in the table
below, in Cattell's model the primary personality trait of Dominance (Factor E) is strongly
located in the Independence/Accommodation global factor which represents a quality of
fearless, original thinking and forceful, independent actions. However, other popular big five
models consider Dominance as a facet of several Big-Five traits, including Extraversion, Dis-
Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Thus, Dominance is spread across a range of Big-Five
factors with little influence on any one (Cattell & Mead, 2008). Below is a table that shows
how the 16 primary factors are related to the five global factors of the 16 Personality Factor
theory. Compare with the Hierarchical Structure of the Big Five. Also, note that factor B is
considered separate from the other factors because it is not a part of the hierarchical structure
of personality in the same way as the other factors.

Factor analysis strategy

Assumptions shared by standardized personality tests, simply stated, are that humans possess
characteristics or traits that are stable, vary from individual to individual, and can be
measured. Factor analysis is a statistical procedure for reducing the redundancy in a set of
intercorrelated scores. One major technique of factor analysis, the principal-components
method, finds the minimum number of common factors that can account for an interrelated
set of scores. Cattell's goal was to empirically determine and measure the essence of
personality. Cattell used factor analysis to reduce thousands of psychological traits into what
he believed to be 16 of the basic dimensions, or source traits of human personality. As a
result, he created the 16PF personality test.

16 global and primary factors

Low Receptivity/ Lack of

Introversion/ Accommodation/
Anxiety/Hig Tough- Restraint/Se
Extroversion Independence
h Anxiety Mindedness lf-Control

B:
C:
A: A: E: F: Prob
Emotionally
Reserved/War Warm/Reserv Deferential/Domin Serious/Livel lem-
Stable/React
m ed ant y Solvi
ive
ng

L: I: G:
F:
Trusting/Vig Sensitive/Uns H: Shy/Bold Expedient/Ru
Serious/Lively
ilant entimental le-Conscious

O: Self- M: M:
L:
H: Shy/Bold Assured/Ap Abstracted/Pr Abstracted/Pr
Trusting/Vigilant
prehensive actical actical
 N: Q4: Q1: Open-to- Q1: Q3: Tolerates
Private/Forthrig Relaxed/Ten Change/Tradi Traditional/Open- Disorder/Perf
ht se tional to-Change ectionistic

Q2: Self-
Reliant/Group-
Oriented

History and development:-

Cattal physical sciences background :

The 16PF Questionnaire was created from a fairly unusual perspective among personality
tests. Most personality tests are developed to measure just the pre-conceived traits that are of
interest to a particular theorist or researcher. The main author of the 16PF, Raymond B.
Cattell, had a strong background in the physical sciences, especially chemistry and physics, at
a time when the basic elements of the physical world were being discovered, placed in the
periodic table, and used as the basis for understanding the fundamental nature of the physical
world and for further inquiry. From this background in the physical sciences, Cattell
developed the belief that all fields are best understood by first seeking to find the
fundamental underlying elements in that domain, and then developing a valid way to measure
and research these elements (Cattell, 1965).

Personality research author Schuerger stated that:

Cattell's goal in creating the 16PF Questionnaire was to provide a thorough, research-based
map of normal personality.
When Cattell moved from the physical sciences into the field of psychology in the 1920s, he
described his disappointment about finding that it consisted largely of a wide array of
abstract, unrelated theories and concepts that had little or no scientific bases. He found that
most personality theories were based on philosophy and on personal conjecture, or were
developed by medical professionals, such as Jean Charcot and Sigmund Freud, who relied on
their personal intuition to reconstruct what they felt was going on inside people, based on
observing individuals with serious psycho-pathological problems. Cattell (1957) described
the concerns he felt as a scientist:

"In psychology there is an ocean of spawning intuitions and comfortable assumptions which
we share with the layman, and out of which we climb with difficulty to the plateaus of
scientific objectivity....Scientific advance hinges on the introduction of measurement to the
field under investigation….Psychology has bypassed the necessary descriptive, taxonomic,
and metric stages through which all healthy sciences first must pass….If Aristotle and other
philosophers could get no further by sheer power of reasoning in two thousand years of
observation, it is unlikely that we shall do so now.... For psychology to take its place as an
effective science, we must become less concerned with grandiose theory than with
establishing, through research, certain basic laws of relationship."
Thus, Cattell's goal in creating the 16PF Questionnaire was to discover the number and
nature of the fundamental traits of human personality and to develop a way to measure
these dimensions. At the University of London, Cattell worked with Charles Spearman
who was developing factor analysis to aid in his quest to discover the basic factors of
human ability. Cattell thought that could also be applied to the area of personality. He
reasoned that human personality must have basic, underlying, universal dimensions just
as the physical world had basic building blocks (like oxygen and hydrogen). He felt that
if the basic building blocks of personality were discovered and measured, then human
behaviour (e.g., creativity, leadership, altruism, or aggression) could become increasingly
understandable and predictable.

Lexical Hypothesis (1936)

In 1936 Gordon Allport and H.S. Odbert hypothesized that:

Those individual differences that are most salient and socially relevant in people's lives
will eventually become encoded into their language; the more important such a
difference, the more likely is it to become expressed as a single word.
This statement has become known as the Lexical Hypothesis, which posits that if there is
a word for a trait, it must be a real trait. Allport and Odbert used this hypothesis to
identify personality traits by working through two of the most
comprehensive dictionaries of the English language available at the time, and extracting
18,000 personality-describing words. From this gigantic list they extracted 4500
personality-describing adjectives which they considered to describe observable and
relatively permanent traits.

Cattell and his colleagues began a comprehensive program of international research

aimed at identifying and mapping out the basic underlying dimensions of personality.
Their goal was to systematically measure the widest possible range of personality
concepts, in a belief that "all aspects of human personality which are or have been of
importance, interest, or utility have already become recorded in the substance of
language" . They wanted to include every known personality dimension in their
investigation, and thus began with the largest existing compilation of personality traits
(Allport and Odbert, 1936).[43] Over time, they used factor analysis to reduce the massive
list of traits by analysing the underlying patterns among them. They studied personality
data from different sources (e.g. objective measures of daily behaviour, interpersonal
ratings, and questionnaire results), and measured these traits in diverse populations,
including working adults, university students, and military personnel.

16 Personality Factors identified (1949)

The 16 Personality Factors were identified in 1949 by Raymond Cattell. He believed that
in order to adequately map out personality, one had to utilize L-Data (life records or
observation), Q data (information from questionnaires), and T-data (information from
objective tests). The development of the 16PF Questionnaire, although confusingly
named, was an attempt to develop an adequate measure of T-data.

Cattell analysed the list of 4500 adjectives and organized the list of adjectives into fewer
than 171 items and asked subjects to rate people whom they knew on each of the
adjectives on the list (an example of L-data because the information was gathered from
observers). This allowed Cattell to narrow down to 35 terms and factor analysis in 1945,
1947 and 1948 revealed a 11 or 12 factor solution.

In 1949 Cattell found that there were 4 additional factors, which he believed consisted of
information that could only be provided through self-rating. This process allowed the use
of ratings by observers, questionnaires, and objective measurements of actual
behaviour. In 1952 the ILLIAC I became available at the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign to be used for factor analysis.

Together the original 12 factors and the 4 covert factors made up the original 16 primary
personality factors.[53] As the five factor theory gained traction and research on the 16
factors continued, subsequent analysis identified five factors underlying the 16 factors.
Cattell called these global factors.

The 16PF factorial structure resembles that of Szondi test and the Brushier test (BTT),
despite being based on different theories.

Analytic study and revisions of the factors (1949–2011)

Because the 16PF dimensions were developed through factor analysis, construct validity
is provided by studies that confirm its factor structure. Over several decades of factor-
analytic study, Cattell and his colleagues gradually refined and validated their list of
underlying source traits. The search resulted in the sixteen unitary traits of the 16PF
Questionnaire. These traits have remained the same over the last 50 years of research. In
addition, the 16PF Questionnaire traits are part of a multi-variate personality model that
provides a broader framework including developmental, environmental, and hereditary
patterns of the traits and how they change across the life span.

The validity of the factor structure of the 16PF Questionnaire (the 16 primary factors and
5 global factors) has been supported by more than 60 published studies. Research has
also supported the comprehensiveness of the 16PF traits: all dimensions on other major
personality tests (e.g., the NEO Personality Inventory, the California Psychological
Inventory, the Personality Research Form, and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) have
been found to be contained within the 16PF scales in regression and factor-analytic
studies.

Since its release in 1949, the 16PF Questionnaire has been revised four times: once in
1956, once in 1962, once in 1968, and the current version was developed in 1993. The
US version of the test was also re-standardized in 2002, along with the development of
forms for children and teenagers; versions for the UK, Ireland, France and the
Netherlands were re-standardised in 2011. Additionally, there is a shortened form
available primarily for employee selection and the questionnaire has been adapted into
more than 35 languages. The questionnaire has also been validated in a range of
international cultures over time

The 16PF was distributed through the Institute for Personality and Ability Testing
(IPAT), founded by Cattell and based in Savoy, Illinois. In January 2003, the Institute
was purchased by UK private company, OPP Limited, who administered the 16PF
worldwide. It later became a subsidiary of Performance Assessment Network (PAN)
[64]
which in 2017 was acquired by PSI.
From the beginning of his research, Cattell found personality traits to have a multi-level,
hierarchical structure (Cattell, 1946). The first goal of these researchers was to find the
most fundamental primary traits of personality. Next, they factor-analysed these
numerous primary traits to see if these traits had a structure of their own—i.e. if some of
them naturally went together in self-defining, meaningful groupings.

They consistently found that the primary traits themselves came together in particular,
meaningful groupings to form broader secondary or global traits, each with its own
particular focus and function within personality. For example, the first global trait they
found was Extraversion-Introversion. It resulted from the natural affinity of five primary
traits that defined different reasons for an individual to move toward versus away from
other people (see below). They found that there was a natural tendency for these traits to
go together in the real world, and to define an important domain of human behaviour—
social behaviour. This global factor Global Extraversion/Introversion (the tendency to
move toward versus away from interaction with others) is composed from the following
primary traits:

 Warmth (Factor A):

the tendency to move toward others seeking closeness and connection because of
genuine feelings of caring, sympathy, and concern (versus the tendency to be
reserved and detached, and thus be independent and unemotional).

 Liveliness (Factor F):

the tendency to be high-energy, fun-loving, and carefree, and to spontaneously move

towards others in an animated, stimulating manner. Low-scorers tend to be more
serious and self-restrained, and to be cautious, unrushed, and judicious.

 Social Boldness (Factor H):

the tendency to seek social interaction in a confident, fearless manner, enjoying

challenges, risks, and being the center of attention. Low-scorers tend to be shy and
timid, and to be more modest and risk-avoidant.

 Forthrightness (Factor N):

the tendency to want to be known by others—to be open, forthright, and genuine in

social situations, and thus to be self-revealing and unguarded. Low-scorers tend to be
more private and oneself-revealing, and to be harder to get to know.

 Affiliative (Factor Q2):

the tendency to seek companionship and enjoy belonging to and functioning in a

group (inclusive, cooperative, good follower, willing to compromise). Low-scorers
tend to be more individualistic and self-reliant and to value their autonomy.
In a similar manner, these researchers found that four other primary traits consistently
merged to define another global factor which they called Receptivity or Openness (versus
Tough-Mindedness). This factor was made up of four primary traits that describe
different kinds of openness to the world:
 Openness to sensitive feelings, emotions, intuition, and aesthetic
dimensions (Sensitivity – Factor I)
 Openness to abstract, theoretical ideas, conceptual thinking, and
imagination (Abstractedness – Factor M)
 Openness to free thinking, inquiry, exploration of new approaches, and innovative
solutions (Openness-to-Change – Factor Q1) and
 Openness to people and their feelings (Warmth – Factor A).
Another global factor, Self-Controlled (or conscientious) versus Unrestrained, resulted
from the natural coming together of four primary factors that define the different ways
that human beings manage to control their behaviour:

 Rule-Consciousness (Factor G) involves adopting and conscientiously following

society's accepted standards of behaviour
 Perfectionism (Factor Q3) describes a tendency to be self-disciplined, organized,
thorough, attentive to detail, and goal-oriented
 Seriousness (Factor F) involves a tendency to be cautious, reflective, self-restrained,
and deliberate in making decisions; and
 Groundedness (Factor M) involves a tendency to stay focused on concrete, pragmatic,
realistic solutions.
Because the global factors were developed by factor-analysing the primary traits, the
meanings of the global traits were determined by the primary traits which made them up.
In addition, then the global factors provide the overarching, conceptual framework for
understanding the meaning and function of each of the primary traits. Thus, the two
levels of personality are essentially inter-connected and inter-related.

However, it is the primary traits that provide a clear definition of the individual's unique
personality. Two people might have exactly the same level of Extraversion, but still be
quite different from each other. For example, they may both be at the 80% on
Extraversion, and both tend to move toward others to the same degree, but they may be
doing it for quite different reasons. One person might achieve an 80% on Extraversion by
being high on Social Boldness (Factor H: confident, bold, talkative, adventurous,
fearless attention-seeking) and on Liveliness (Factor F: high-energy, enthusiastic, fun-
loving, impulsive), but Reserved (low on Factor A: detached, cool, unfeeling, objective).
This individual would be talkative, bold, and impulsive but not very sensitive to others
people's needs or feelings. The second Extravert might be high on Warmth (Factor A:
kind, soft-hearted, caring and nurturing), and Group-Oriented (low Factor Q2:
companionable, cooperative, and participating), but Shy (low on Factor H: timid, modest,
and easily embarrassed). This second Extravert would tend to show quite different social
behaviour and be caring, considerate, and attentive to others but not forward, bold or loud
—and thus have quite a different effect on his/her social environment.

Today, the global traits of personality are commonly known as the Big Five. The Big
Five traits are most important for getting an abstract, theoretical understanding of the big,
overarching domains of personality, and in understanding how different traits of
personality relate to each other and how different research findings relate to each other.
The big-five is important for understanding and interpreting an individual's personality
profile mainly in getting a broad overview of their personality make-up at the highest
level of personality organization. However, it is still the scores on the more specific
primary traits that define the rich, unique personality make-up of any individual. These
more-numerous primary traits have repeatedly been found to be the most powerful in
predicting and understanding the complexity of actual daily behaviour.