Test 1 - NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO FFI)

Aim/Objective

To understand and demonstrate the administration, scoring, and interpretation of NEO-Five Factor
Inventory (NEO-FFI).

Introduction

Definitions

According to the American Psychological Association (APA), ‘Personality’ refers to the enduring
characteristics and behaviour that comprise a person’s unique adjustment to life, including major
traits, interests, drives, values, self-concept, abilities, and emotional patterns.

Gordon Allport (1961) defined personality as the “dynamic organisation within the individual of
those psychophysical systems that determine his unique adjustment to his environment.” This
definition emphasises the structured yet fluid nature of personality, combining both biological and
psychological factors.

According to Hans Eysenck (1971), Personality is the more or less stable and enduring organisation of
a person’s character, temperament, intellect and physique that determine his unique adjustment to
his environment.

Importance of Personality Assessment

Personality assessment is critical in multiple domains like psychology, education, career

development, and clinical settings. (Sarason, 2024) Personality assessments provide individuals with
insights into their own traits, behaviours, and tendencies. This self-awareness is essential for
personal development, helping people to identify strengths, weaknesses, and areas for
improvement. Additionally, in educational contexts, personality assessments can help educators
understand students’ learning styles and motivations, leading to more personalised and effective
teaching methods.

(Touze, 2005) Employers and career counsellors often use personality assessments to match
individuals with job roles that align with their natural tendencies. For example, the NEO-FFI is used to
predict performance and job satisfaction based on traits like

conscientiousness and agreeableness. The better the match between a person’s personality and their
job, the more likely they are to perform well and experience job satisfaction.

Understanding personality traits can enhance communication and relationships, whether in personal
or professional contexts. In workplaces, personality assessments can be used to form effective teams
by balancing complementary traits.

(Gardiner, 2024) In therapy or counselling, knowing a client’s personality profile allows professionals
to tailor interventions that resonate with the individual’s traits.
Additionally, in clinical psychology, personality assessments help diagnose and treat mental health
issues. For instance, certain personality traits may predispose individuals to specific disorders, such
as high neuroticism being linked to anxiety and depression. By identifying these traits early,
practitioners can design more effective treatment plans.

Theories

Biological Personality Theories

Biological approaches suggest that genetics are primarily responsible for personality. In the nature
versus nurture debate, the biological theories of personality side with nature. The biological theory
of personality delves into the formation of personality through biological foundations. According to
this theory, biological factors play an important role in shaping the personality of an individual.
(MSEd, K. C., 2024)

Research on heritability suggests that there is a link between genetics and personality traits.
Biological theories of personality do not look at external factors (e.g., the influence of others around
them), but rather at internal factors (e.g., genetics) to explain why our personality is the way it is.
One of the best-known biological theorists was Hans Eysenck, who linked aspects of personality to
biological processes. (MSEd, K. C., 2024)

Eysenck proposed a theory of personality based on biological factors, arguing that individuals inherit
a type of nervous system that affects their ability to learn and adapt to the environment. Eysenck
found that their behaviour could be represented by two dimensions: Introversion / Extroversion (E);
Neuroticism / Stability (N). Eysenck called these second-order personality traits. Each aspect of
personality (extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism) can be traced back to a different biological
cause. Eysenck believed that these dimensions then combine in different ways to form an individual's
unique [Link] of the dimensions have been explained below:

Extraversion/Introversion

Extraverts are sociable and crave excitement and change, and thus can become bored easily. They
tend to be carefree, optimistic, and impulsive.

They are more likely to take risks and be thrill seekers. Eysenck argues that this is because they
inherit an under aroused nervous system and so seek stimulation to restore the level of optimum
stimulation.

Introverts lie at the other end of this scale, being quiet and reserved. They are already over-aroused
and avoid sensation and stimulation.

Introverts are reserved, plan their actions and control their emotions. They tend to be serious,
reliable, and pessimistic. (McLeod, S., PhD.,2024b)

Neuroticism/Stability

A person’s level of neuroticism is determined by the reactivity of their sympathetic nervous system. A
stable person’s nervous system will be less reactive to stressful situations, remaining calm and level
headed. Someone high in neuroticism on the other hand will be much more unstable, and prone to
overreacting to stimuli and may be quick to worry, anger or fear. They are overly emotional and find
it difficult to calm down once upset. (McLeod, S., PhD.,2024b)

Psychoticism/Normality

Eysenck added a third trait (dimension) called psychoticism, which is characterised by lacking
empathy, being cruel, being a loner, aggressive and troublesome. This has been related to high levels
of testosterone. The higher the testosterone, the higher the level of psychoticism, with low levels
related to more normal balanced behaviour.

According to Eysenck, personality is influenced by a stress hormone “cortisol”. Based on his theory,
introverts have high cortical arousal and hence avoid stimulation, while extroverts have low cortical
arousal and hence crave for stimulation. Personality is dependent on the balance between the
excitation and inhibition process of the autonomic nervous system (ANS). (McLeod, S., PhD.,2024b)

Behavioural Personality Theories

Behaviorism is the study of human behavior in relation to one's environment. Theorists of this school
of thought believe that all behaviors are learned and that changes in behavior are related to the
people, situations, and places in which they occur. Behaviorists believe that people learn behaviors
based on systems of reward and punishment and that a person's behavioral development is due to
external forces. This reward system is called conditioning. (MSEd, K. C., 2024)

John Watson believed that one could predict and even control human behavior based on the
behavior patterns observed in his patients and society. He believed that the mind was a tabula rasa,
or a "blank slate." Watson believed that the environment was the only force shaping personality and
behaviour. Behavioural personality theories suggest that personality is a result of interaction
between the individual and the environment. (MSEd, K. C., 2024)

Psychodynamic Theories of personality

The psychodynamic theories of personality state that events in an individual’s childhood have a
significant impact on their adult lives hence shaping their personality. Personality is shaped as the
internal/external drives are modified or changed by different conflicts at different times in an
individual’s childhood. Psychodynamic theory explains personality in terms of unconscious
psychological processes, and states that childhood experiences are crucial in shaping adult
personality. Psychodynamic theories of personality are heavily influenced by the work of Sigmund
Freud and emphasise the influence of the unconscious mind and childhood experiences on
personality. According to Sigmund Freud’s theory of psychosexual stages of development, childhood
experiences create the adult personality. Events that occur in childhood can remain in the
unconscious and cause problems as adults, such as mental illness. Psychodynamic theories include
Sigmund Freud's psychosexual stage theory and Erik Erikson's stages of psychosocial development.
According to Sigmund Freud, children go through a series of psychosexual stages that lead to the
development of the adult personality. Freud's stages of human development, which consisted of five
psychosexual stages of development, described how personality developed over the course of
childhood. They are: The Oral Stage (Birth to 1 yrs), Anal stage (1 to 3 years), Phallic stage (3 to 6
years) and Latent period (16 to puberty) (Bornstein, R.)

Freud believed that there are three components of personality: the id, ego, and superego. The id is
responsible for needs and urges. It is the primitive and instinctive component of personality. It
consists of all the inherited (biological) components of personality present at birth, including the sex
(life) instinct – Eros (which contains the libido), and the aggressive (death) instinct – Thanatos.
(MSEd, K. C.,2023)

The superego regulates ideals and morals which are learned from one’s parents and others. It has
two components: the ego ideal, which sets the standards, and the conscience, which produces guilt.
The ego moderates the demands of the id, superego, and reality. The ego develops to mediate
between the unrealistic id and the external real world. It is the decision-making component of
personality.

When unconscious conflicts between the id and the superego cannot be resolved by the ego, they
create anxiety. To reduce this anxiety, defence mechanisms are used.

Trait Personality Theories

A trait is a personality characteristic that meets three criteria: being consistent, stable, and varying
from person to person. Therefore, a trait can be thought of as a relatively stable characteristic that
causes individuals to behave in certain ways. According to the trait theories, personality is made up
of a number of broad traits. Some of the best-known trait theories include the five-factor theory of
personality, HEXACO model of personality structure.

Five factor theory of personality

Researchers suggested that a person's personality has five broad dimensions, often referred to as the
Big 5 theory of [Link] Big 5 theory suggests that all personalities can be characterised by
five major personality dimensions: openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and
neuroticism, collectively referred to by the acronym OCEAN. This five-factor model of personality
represents five core traits that interact to form human personality. While researchers often disagree
about the exact labels for each dimension, they are commonly described as:

Domains of the Big Five factor model:

O - Openness to new experiences

It can be described as a person’s willingness to try new things, be open to enjoy new experiences and
their capability to think outside the box.(Ciccarelli & White, 2016, p. 533) People who are high in this
personality trait tend to be more adventurous, creative, are curious about the world, other people
and are eager to learn new things. People who try to maintain the status quo and who don’t like to
change things would score on openness.(MSEd, 2023)

C – Conscientiousness
Conscientiousness is one defined by high levels of thoughtfulness, good impulse control, and goal-
directed behaviours. Highly conscientious people tend to be organised and mindful of details. They
plan ahead, think about how their behaviour affects others, and are mindful of deadlines. People low
in conscientiousness are much more likely to procrastinate and to be flighty, impetuous, and
impulsive.(MSEd, 2023)

E – Extraversion

The term used by Carl Jung has two familiar ends of its spectrum: Extraverts and Introverts.
Extraverts are characterised by excitability, sociability, talkativeness, assertiveness, and high amounts
of emotional expressiveness whereas Introverts are more solitary, dislike being the center of
attention and get tired from interacting with others and replenish their energy with solitude.(MSEd,
2023)

A – Agreeableness

This factor concerns how well people get along with others. People high in agreeableness tend to be
well-liked, respected, and sensitive to the needs of others. They likely have few enemies and are
affectionate to their friends and loved ones while those low in this personality trait tend to be more
grumpy, crabby, competitive and sometimes even manipulative.(MSEd, 2023)

N – Neuroticism

Neuroticism is a personality trait characterised by sadness, moodiness, and emotional instability.

Individuals who are high in neuroticism tend to experience mood swings, anxiety, irritability whereas
those who are more even tempered, stable, calm and emotionally resilient would score low.(MSEd,
2023)

HEXACO model of personality structure

The HEXACO Personality Inventory was developed in 2000 by Canadian psychology professor Kibeom
Lee. & Michael C. Ashton, Ph.D. The inventory’s foundations stem from research into five core
personality [Link] HEXACO Personality Inventory measures six facets of personality:

1. Honesty-Humility

2. Emotionality

3. Extraversion

4. Agreeableness (vs. Anger)

5. Conscientiousness

6. Openness to Experience
Like other personality tests, the HEXACO Personality Inventory is used to measure human personality
across a multitude of situations. There are six primary domains that comprise the assessment. (Patel,
B.,2023)

1. Honesty-Humility: Those who score high on this trait seldom break rules, rarely deceive
others for personal benefit, aren’t interested in luxury or lavishness, and don’t feel entitled
to a high social status. Conversely, those who score low have an inflated sense of self-
importance, flatter others to get what they desire, bend rules for personal gain, and are
materialistic. (Patel, B.,2023)

2. Emotionality: Participants with high scores in this domain tend to experience more anxiety,
crave more emotional support, feel deeper empathy towards others, and fear physical
dangers. Those who score low on emotionality aren’t fearful of physical harm, feel more
detached from others, experience little distress, and aren’t inclined to open up to others.
(Patel, B.,2023)

3. Extraversion: Individuals who score high on extraversion are confident when leading others,
feel energized and motivated when interacting with people, view themselves in a positive
light, and thrive in social situations. Those who score low on this domain may believe
themselves to be unpopular, feel depleted in social situations, feel uncomfortable when
they’re the center of attention, and don’t experience as much outward enthusiasm and
optimism. (Patel, B.,2023)

4. Agreeableness: People who have high scores on this trait are more inclined to compromise,
can manage their temper, judge others with leniency, and can forgive easily. Those with low
scores are stubborn and tend to hold grudges against those who have hurt them, criticize
others, and become angered easily when they are mistreated. (Patel, B.,2023)

5. Conscientiousness: Individuals with high conscientiousness scores consider decisions

carefully, aim for perfection and accuracy, possess discipline when working towards goals,
and are organized with their time and surroundings. Those who score low on this domain let
errors slide, make decisions impulsively, don’t give as much attention to their time or
surroundings, and are deterred by challenging goals or tasks. (Patel, B.,2023)

6. Openness to Experience: People scoring high on this trait are imaginative, drawn towards
unconventional people or ideas, immerse themselves in nature and art, and inquire about
different knowledge bases. Those with low scores aren’t creative, stray away from radical
ideas, aren’t interested in artwork, and don’t experience intellectual curiosity. (Patel,
B.,2023)

History of Neo FFI Inventory

Objective personality testing began with Woodworth's Personal Data Sheet in 1917. That test was
developed to identify soldiers prone to nervous breakdowns during enemy

bombardment in World War I (WWI). Soon after, many competing personality tests were developed
for use in industry. Many of these tests, like Woodworth's, focused on the construct of employee
maladjustment and were deemed important in screening out applicants who would create workplace
disturbances. In this article, the authors review the history of these early personality tests, especially
the Bernreuter Personality Inventory and the Humm-Wadsworth Temperament Scale, and discuss
the implications of personality testers' obsession with the construct of employee maladjustment. The
Greek philosopher Heraclitus declared that “character is destiny,” a phrase which often is interpreted
to refer to ethics, but can also include personality traits. One of the main tenets of psychometrics—
the science of measuring and quantifying psychology—is that your personality doesn’t change, no
matter how much you otherwise change as a person. Allport developed his personality theory in
academic settings instead of psychoanalytic settings. For this reason this theory gained much
importance and recognition among academic psychologists. Allport made an important contribution
to the field of psychology through his explanation of personality in terms of traits. In the early 1980s,
Costa and McCrae proposed a three-factor model of personality, including neuroticism, extraversion,
and openness, based on prior research. Meanwhile, Goldberg's work (1983) on lexical studies
identified five personality factors. Comparing Goldberg's adjectives with the NEO Inventory in the
Augmented Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (BLSA), it was found that our model captured
neuroticism, extraversion, and openness well, but missed agreeableness and conscientiousness. To
address this, we developed measures for these additional traits and found strong agreement
between self-reports, observer ratings, and lexical measures, confirming that all five factors are valid
and essential components of personality.

Other Common Personality Assessment Measures

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)

The most common personality inventory is Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Version II,
Restricted Form or MMPI-2 which tests for abnormal behaviour and thinking patterns in personality
and psychopathology. The current questionnaire consists of 338 statements. The MMPI-2-RF has 12
higher-order and clinical scales, 10 validity scales, and numerous scales for specific problems (e.g.,
family problems, aggression, anxiety, etc.). Each scale tests for a particular kind of behaviour or way
of thinking. The thinking and behaviour patterns include relatively mild personality problems such as
excessive worrying and shyness as well as more serious disorders such as schizophrenia and
depression.(Ciccarelli & White, 2016, p. 541)

16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16 PF)

The 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire Fifth Edition (16 PF) authored by Raymond B. Cattell, Karen
Cattell, Heather Cattell, Mary Russell, and Darcie Karol, is a self-report

personality test designed to measure normal personality traits in individuals aged 16 years or older.
Based on 16 scales identified through factor analysis, the test is grouped into five global factors and
is widely used by professionals in various settings, including business, clinical, and educational
environments. It assists in making employee selection decisions, promoting employee development,
and understanding client issues within the context of their personality. The fifth edition of the 16PF
includes 185 straightforward questions about daily behaviour, interests, and opinions. The
assessment typically takes 35 to 50 minutes to complete by hand and 25 to 35 minutes on a
computer, and it can be administered either individually or in groups (Home - Power Within
Psychology, n.d., p. 142).

CPI - California Psychological Inventory (CPI)

The California Psychological Inventory, Third Edition (CPI), authored by Harrison G. Gough and
Pamela Bradley, is a personality inventory originally developed in 1956, with its third edition, CPI 434,
published in 1996. Designed for individuals aged 13 years and older, the CPI measures social and
interpersonal behaviours and predicts how people will behave in specific contexts. The CPI 434 is a
self-report test consisting of 434 true/false items, nearly 40% of which were drawn from the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. The test takes approximately 45 to 60 minutes to
complete and can be administered individually or in groups, either in paper-and-pencil format or
online. A variety of user guides and manuals are available to support the administration and
interpretation of the test, which can be scored by hand or by computer. The CPI 434 includes 18 of
the original 20 Folk Concept Scales, such as Dominance, Capacity for Status, Sociability, Social
Presence, Self-Acceptance, Independence, Empathy, Responsibility, and others. Hu Cook and Isabel
Briggs Myers in1943 based on the psychological - type framework of Carl Jung and on their belief
that understanding differences in personality preferences can help individuals interact with others
more effectively. The questionnaire is made up of four different scales namely - Extraversion (E) –
Introversion (I) - where you focus your energy, Sensing (S) – Intuition (N) - how you take in
information, Thinking (T) – Feeling (F) - how you make decisions and Judging (J) – Perceiving (P) - how
you deal with the outer world. When these four sets of preferences are combined, they result in 16
different personality types. Personality types are simply different lenses through which to view
ourselves. There's no hierarchy of "better" or "worse." This test is often used for team development,
conflict management, leadership, coaching and career [Link] test is the most appropriate
for adults and students ages 14 years or older. Available in the paper - pencil and online format, the
self-administered MBTI requires individuals to respond to forced - choice questionnaires. It is
available in 30 languages and usually takes 15-25 minutes to complete.(Home - Power Within
Psychology, n.d., p. 138)

Eysenck Personality Questionnaire ( EPQ)

The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) is a three-dimensional personality assessment tool that
evolved from the earlier Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI), which measured two dimensions:
Extraversion (E) and Neuroticism (N). Eysenck initially conceptualised personality as these two
biologically based, independent dimensions of temperament. However, in 1975, he expanded the
model to include a third dimension, Psychoticism (P), leading to the development of the EPQ. This
revised questionnaire contains 100 items, measuring personality along the three axes:
Extraversion/Introversion (E) Neuroticism/Stability (N), and Psychoticism/Socialization (P). The EPQ
was designed to align with Eysenck's theoretical P-E-N model, which emphasises these three major
dimensions of personality. In addition to the core personality dimensions, the EPQ includes a Lie
scale (L), which consists of items that detect the tendency of respondents to give socially desirable
but inaccurate responses. This helps to ensure the validity of the results by identifying any bias in
self-reporting. The EPQ underwent further revision in 1985, with refinements to both the items and
the measurement process to enhance its psychometric properties. The EPQ-R (Revised) was
introduced as an updated version, providing more clarity and reliability, and was also available in a
shorter form with 48 items for quicker assessments. The EPQ is widely used in clinical diagnostics,
psychological research, occupational settings, educational guidance, and forensic psychology. Its
ability to measure key personality traits across multiple dimensions makes it a versatile tool for
understanding personality and its impact on behaviour. (SAPA Project | Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire ®, n.d.)

Recent Research/ Developments

Postpartum depression (PPD) is a significant global health concern with profound implications for
mothers, families, and societies. A systematic review synthesized current research findings to
understand better how personality traits, as assessed by the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI),
contribute to the development and progression of PPD. Conducted in January 2024, the review
included a total of seven studies assessed through a rigorous two-step screening process, and their
data were qualitatively synthesised. The review covered a total of 4172 participants, with a
prevalence of clinically significant postpartum depression symptoms ranging from 10.6% to 51.7%.
Notably, Neuroticism emerged as a significant predictor of PPD. In contrast, traits like Extraversion
and Conscientiousness generally showed protective effects, with lower scores associated with
reduced PPD risk. For instance, Extraversion scores correlated negatively with PPD risk (Beta =
−0.171) in one study. However, the impact of other traits such as Openness and Agreeableness on
PPD risk was less clear, with some studies indicating negligible effects.

The Neo Five factor Inventory is applied in various research studies. In a study by Ohi [Link] (2016), it
was found that patients of Schizophrenia showed some association with the factors of the Neo-FFI
model. It was a meta-analysis report, consisting of 460 schizophrenia patients and 486 healthy
subjects. Patients with schizophrenia showed a higher score for the

factor Neuroticism (N), and lower scores on the rest of the factors, which are, Extraversion (E),
Openness (O), Agreeableness (A), and Consciousness (C), compared with the healthy subjects. It was
noted that these results were not affected by any other moderator factors. Hence, the findings
suggested that patients with schizophrenia have a different personality outline compared to healthy
individuals.

A study by Peterson [Link] (2002) aimed at finding whether baseline neuroticism scores predict
response to treatment with fluoxetine in depressed outpatients. Total number of depressed patients
participating in the clinical trial of fluoxetine study were 70. These participants also completed the
Neo-FFI at baseline. As a result, it was found that scores on the neuroticism scale were not found to
predict treatment response that was measured by HAM-D-17.

Test Description

NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) is a psychological assessment instrument limited to measuring

five domains of personality, namely Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and
Conscientiousness. It is however mainly applied in clinical and research studies for the purpose of
assessing the personality traits, making decisions regarding treatment and analysing personality
within individuals. (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The NEO FFI is appropriate for the age of 18 and above. It
can be utilised in many fields such as psychological therapy, science, education. . There is separation
of the 60 items in a single NEO five factor index view thus, 12 items for each domain of the five
personality dimensions. The items are indeed assertive and involve answering using a scale from very
disagreeing to very agreeing. ( GD Topping , JG O’Gorman 1997 ) The questionnaire contains 60 self-
reporting questions in which participants provide answers based on what they believe to be true
about themselves. Each of the domains is assessed using 12 instruments from the five major
personality domains (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Responses on the NEO FFI are obtained through
summing the responses for each of the five domains. The scores for the domains are then tested
against a norm which is usually presented as T-scores or percentiles.: ( GD Topping & JG O’Gorman,
1997 ). Huigher scores mean a greater degree of the given trait is present. Concerning the
participants are told that they have to even answer to the questions as much exactly as they feel the
situation [Link] the instructions the participants are instructed to respond to each statement as
honestly as possible, based on how they typically feel or behave. There are no right or wrong
answers, and all responses are confidential. (McCrae & Costa, 2004).
NEO-FFI is a condensed version of the original Personality Inventory named NEO Personality
Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R). The NEO-PI-R consists of 240 items in total and gives a comprehensive
measure of the five traits, including the six facets. Situations that require a quicker assessment, the
NEO-FFI with its 60 items (12 per domain) is used. The NEO-FFI offers a brief alternative without
sacrificing the reliability and the validity of the measurement. NEO-FFI used a sample of over 2,500
adults to establish norms and validate the test. The NEO-FFI Form S is intended for adults aged 17
and older. There are other norms for adolescents (17-20 years) and adults (21 years and older). The
NEO FFI scales demonstrated strong internal consistency with reliability coefficients of N = .85, E
= .80, O =.68, A = .75, and C = .83, as assessed in a sample of 1,539 individuals and three-month
reliability with coefficients of N = .87, E = .91, and O = .86. In terms of convergent validity, the NEO-
FFI showed strong correlations between neuroticism and extraversion with the Eysenck personality
model, as well as associations between introversion and the NEO component Warmth and NEO facet
Gregariousness in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. These psychometric qualities of the NEO FFI scale
have publications in nine foreign languages and validated versions available in an additional 25
languages.

The NEO-FFI has been found to have good internal consistency. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the
five scales typically range from 0.68 to 0.86, which indicates acceptable to good reliability. Test-retest
reliability studies have shown that the NEO-FFI has strong stability over time, with coefficients
ranging from 0.75 to 0.83 over intervals of several weeks to a few years. (Costa & McCrae,
1992).Concerning the validity of NEO-FFI it has been shown to have good construct validity, as it
correlates well with other measures of the Big Five personality traits, such as the longer NEO
Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R). Factor analysis studies generally support the five-factor
structure. (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The NEO-FFI demonstrates strong criterion validity by effectively
predicting behaviors and outcomes related to the Big Five traits. For instance, high scores in
Conscientiousness are often associated with better job performance, while high Neuroticism scores
are linked to emotional instability. ( V Egan , I Deary & E Austin, 2000 ). JiThe NEO-FFI shows good
convergent validity with other personality assessments measuring similar traits, and good
discriminant validity, meaning it does not correlate highly with unrelated constructs. (Costa &
McCrae, 1992).

Overall, the NEO-FFI is considered a reliable and valid instrument for assessing the Big Five
personality traits, although some researchers prefer the full NEO-PI-R for more detailed analysis. The
NEO-FFI is a well-validated and reliable measure of personality. It has been extensively researched
and demonstrates strong psychometric properties, including internal consistency and test-retest
reliability. The NEO-FFI has been through validation studies across various studies, it demonstrates a
strong internal consistency, along with test-retest reliability and construct validity (Costa & McCrae,
1992). It is adapted as well as validated in numerous cultural contexts, showing its utility in cross-
cultural research (McCrae & Terracciano, 2005). Despite it being a short version, it is successful in
maintaining a high degree of correlation with the full NEO-PI-R, making sure that it remains a robust
tool for personality assessment.

Advantages and Limitations of the NEO Five Factor Inventory

Advantages

The NEO-FFI includes 60 items and it is a much shorter assessment as compared to the full and
original NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R) that consists of 240 items. This short form of
the test allows for a quicker administration and makes it ideal for uses in settings including large-
scale studies, clinical settings with time constraints, and situations where the respondent fatigue
might be an issue (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Even though it is a shortened length, the NEO-FFI also
possesses strong psychometric properties, that includes a high internal consistency and a good
reliability status. The instrument has been validated in various populations, and it demonstrates the
generalizability and cross-cultural applicability (McCrae & Terracciano, 2005). The NEO-FFI is a
versatile test and can be used in diverse fields such as clinical psychology, organisational behaviour,
and educational research. It is highly valuable in personality assessment, diagnosis, employee
selection, and understanding individual differences in a wide range of settings (McCrae & Costa,
2004). The NEO-FFI's characteristic of a straightforward scoring system and well-defined domains
makes the interpretation relatively easy even for those who may not have extensive training in
psychological testing. This improves its usability in both research and applied settings. NEO-FFI is
available in 9 languages that gives an advantage for a wide a population to use this test. (Krahé,
Becker, J, & Zöllter, J , 2008).

Limitations

The NEO-FFI fails to provide detailed facet-level analysis of each of the five personality domains as
compared to the full NEO-PI-R which offers 30 facets (six per domain), allowing for a more nuanced
understanding of personality. (McCrae & Costa, 2004). Whereas the reduction of items may lead to
decrease in measurement precision compared to the NEO-PI-R. This may lead to less accurate
assessments of personality traits where fine distinctions are expected for clinical diagnosis or
detailed research (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Researchers argue that cultural differences sometimes can
also influence an individual response to personality assessments. And so, caution should be exercised
while interpreting the results from different cultural groups, (Heine & Buchtel, 2009).There is a high
chance of halo effect that can influence the test [Link] predictive validity may be limited
compared to more comprehensive assessments that also have a facet-level analysis. Therefore, when
predicting specific behaviours or outcomes might result in less accurate predictions (Judge et al.,
2002).
Methodology

Materials used

Materials used while conducting the test –

1. NEO Five Factor Inventory Test Booklet

2. NEO Five Factor Inventory Answer Sheet

3. Profile – Forms (Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness,

Neuroticism)

4. NEO Five Factor Inventory Scoring Key

5. Stationary

Test Taker’s Details

Name Age Gender Emotional State

H.M. 21 years Female Calm

Administration and Instructions

Administration

The test-taker was invited and was made to sit comfortably before starting the conduction of the
test. Materials for the test were provided to the test-taker once they settled. The instructions to
writing the test were specified by the test-user to the test-taker. The test-taker was asked if he/she
had any doubts and whether he/she understood well. The test-taker details were noted down on the
test booklet. Then, the test was given for administration. Once the administration one done, a check
was done to make sure that all the questions were answered / responded to, followed by the Post-
Task Questions. Then the test-taker was debriefed about the test, after which, they were thanked
and escorted.

Instructions

This questionnaire contains 60 statements. Read each statement carefully. For each statement fill in
the circle with the response that best represents your opinion. Make sure that your answer is in the
correct box.

Fill in SD if you strongly disagree or the statement is definitely false.

Fill in D if you disagree on the or the statement is mostly false.

Fill in N if you are neutral on the statement, if you cannot decide, or if the statement is about equally
true and false.

Fill in A if you agree or the statement is mostly true.

Fill in SA if you strongly agree or the statement is definitely true.

For example, if you strongly disagree or believe that a statement is definitely false, you would fill in
SD for that statement.

Fill in only one response for each statement. Respond to all of the statements, making sure that you
fill in the correct response. DO NOT ERASE! If you need to change an answer, make an “X” through
the incorrect response and then fill in the correct response.

Scoring

To score the test, primarily, it is essential to obtain the raw score for each dimension (column), for
which, assigning values to each item is necessary. Then, once done, raw scores must be converted to
the T Scores. Followed by which, interpret subsequent T Scores using the profile Form S (Adult).

Interpretation

After obtaining the t-scores for respective dimensions, they are plotted against the Neo five factor
inventory profile Form S. This Profile Form S is used to interpret the t-scores. Based on where the t-
score falls for a particular trait/domain, it can be categorized as very high, high, average, low and
very low.

Results and Interpretation

Results

Table 1.1 - Scores on the NEO Five-Factor Inventory

Dimension Raw Score T Score Interpretation

Neuroticism
21 51 Average
(N)

Extraversion
32 57 High
(E)

Openness to
Experience 21 40 Low
(O)

Agreeableness 36 65 High
 (A)

Conscientiousness
38 55 Average
(C)

Table 1.1 indicates the Raw Scores and the T Scores for each dimension of the test along with the
interpretation.

The test-taker’s Raw Score on Neuroticism (N) is 21 and the T Score is 51 indicating an average score.
This is suggestive of the test-taker being mostly averaged out on experiencing negative emotions and
having emotional instability. The test-taker’s Raw Score on Extraversion (E) is 32 and the T Score is 57
indicating a high score. This is suggestive of the test-taker being outgoing, sociable and energetic.
The test-taker’s Raw Score on Openness to Experience (O) is 21 and the T Score is 40 indicating a low
score. This is suggestive of the test-taker not much preferring to have variety in life, doing new
things, the test-taker isn’t much creative and doesn’t prefer novelty, and is less curious in terms of
interests. The test-taker’s Raw Score on Agreeableness (A) is 36 and the T Score is 65 indicating a high
score. This is suggestive of the test-taker having inclination towards being cooperative, supportive as
well as compassionate. The test-taker’s Raw Score on Conscientiousness (C) is 38 and the T Score is
55 indicating an average score. This is suggestive of the test-taker having a tendency towards self-
discipline, organization as well as goal-directed behavior.

Interpretation

"Personality refers to the enduring patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that distinguish
individuals from one another" (Pervin & John, 1997).

The NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO FFI), a psychological assessment tool, that measures five
dimensions of personality. Those dimensions are – Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness,
Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism. Each dimension, also called the subtest, consists of 12
items those are designed in a way that reflects various facets of the corresponding personality trait.
This test was developed by Costa and McCrae. This test has 60 items, and is a shortened version of
the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R). The test is used widely in both – clinical research
settings for assessing individual personality traits with extensive research supporting its reliability
and validity. It takes about 10-15 minutes to complete the test. For the scoring, the test follows a
Likert scale which is later converted to standardized scores, providing an individual’s personality trait
profile.

The test-taker, H.M., 21 year-old Female, was calm and comfortable while stepping in the test-taking
room and throughout the test-taking procedure. Roughly around 12 minutes were taken by the test-
taker to complete the test.

The test-taker’s raw score on the Neuroticism dimension is 21, and the T score is 51, which is an
indicative of an average score. It indicates that the test-taker is mostly averaged out on experiencing
negative emotions and having emotional instability.
The test-taker’s raw score on the Extraversion dimension is 32, and the T score is 57, which is an
indicative of a high score. It indicates that the test-taker is outgoing, sociable and energetic.

The test-taker’s raw score on the Openness to Experience dimension is 21, and the T score is 40,
which is an indicative of a low score. It indicates that the test-taker doesn’t much prefer having
variety in life, doing new things, the test-taker isn’t much creative and doesn’t prefer novelty, and is
less curious in terms of interests.

The test-taker’s raw score on the Agreeableness dimension is 36, and the T score is 65, which is an
indicative of a high score. It indicates that the test-taker has inclination towards being cooperative,
supportive as well as compassionate.

The test-taker’s raw score on the Conscientiousness dimension is 38, and the T score is 55, which is
an indicative of an average score. It indicates that the test-taker has a tendency towards self-
discipline, organization as well as goal-directed behavior

Conclusion

The test-taker’s raw score on the Neuroticism dimension is 21, and the T score is 51, which is an
indicative of an average score. The test-taker’s raw score on the Extraversion dimension is 32, and
the T score is 57, which is an indicative of a high score. The test-taker’s raw score on the Openness to
Experience dimension is 21, and the T score is 40, which is an indicative of a low score. The test-
taker’s raw score on the Agreeableness dimension is 36, and the T score is 65, which is an indicative
of a high score. The test-taker’s raw score on the Conscientiousness dimension is 38, and the T score
is 55, which is an indicative of an average score.

References

Ackerman, C. E., MA. (2024, July 25). Big five personality traits: the OCEAN model
[Link].
[Link]

Allport, G. W. (n.d.). Definition, origins and Characteristics Features of personality.

[Link]
itle/NColge_1372_Theories%20of%[Link]

Behavioral Personality Theory | Perspective & Criticism - lesson | [Link]. (n.d.).

Biological Theory of Personality: Development | StudySmarter. (n.d.). StudySmarter UK.

Bornstein, R. (n.d.). The psychodynamic perspective. Noba. [Link]

psychodynamic-perspective

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual
Differences, 13(6), 653-665. [Link]

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-
Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-
Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Psychological Assessment Resources.
Dan, P. McAdams (2008). The Person: An Introduction to the Science of Personality Psychology. John
Wiley and Sons, New Jersey.

DeYoung, C. G. (2015). The Five-Factor Model of Personality: A contemporary perspective. Journal of

Personality, 83(3), 301-330.9

Egan, V., Deary, I., & Austin, E. (2000). The NEO-FFI: Emerging British norms and an item-level analysis
suggest N, A and C are more reliable than O and E. Personality and Individual differences, 29(5), 907-
920.

Ferguson, S. (2022, June 22). All about human personality: definition, disorders, and theories. Psych
Central.

Gardiner, K., PhD. (2024, August 15). Personality Assessments: 10 best Inventories, Tests, & methods.
[Link].

Gibby RE, Zickar MJ. A history of the early days of personality testing in American industry: an
obsession with adjustment. Hist Psychol. 2008 Aug;11(3):164-184. doi: 10.1037/a0013041. PMID:
[Link]

Hall, Calvin S. and Lindzey, A (1978). Theories of Personality. John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey.

Heine, S. J., & Buchtel, E. E. (2009). Personality: The universal and the culturally specific. Annual
Review of Psychology, 60, 369-394.

Holzman, P. S. (2024, July 30). Personality | Definition, Types, Nature, & Facts. Encyclopedia
Britannica. [Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link] he%20enduring,
%2C%20abilities%2C%20and%20emotional%20patterns.

[Link]

[Link]

[Link] ogy/biological-
theory-of-personality/#:~:text=Biological%20theories%20of%20 personality%20are%20a%20group
%20of%20theories%20that,who%20we%20ar e%20(nurture).

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative
and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87*(4), 765-780.

Krahé, B., Becker, J., & Zöllter, J. (2008). Contextual cues as a source of response bias in personality
questionnaires: The case of the NEO‐FFI. European Journal of Personality, 22(8), 655-673.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2004). A contemplated revision of the neo five-factor inventory.
Personality and Individual Differences, 36(3), 587–596. [Link]
8869(03)00118-1

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2004). A contemplated revision of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory.
Personality and Individual Differences, 36(3), 587-596. [Link]
8869(03)00118-1
McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2005). Personality profiles of cultures: Aggregate personality traits.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 407-425.

McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2005). Personality profiles of cultures: Aggregate personality traits.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 407-425.

McLeod, S., PhD. (2024). Psychodynamic approach in Psychology. Simply Psychology.

[Link]

McLeod, S., PhD. (2024b). Theories of Personality: Hans Eysenck, Gordon Allport & Raymond Cattell.
Simply Psychology. [Link]

MSEd, K. C. (2023, March 11). What are the big 5 personality traits? Verywell Mind.
[Link] Ciccarelli, S. K., &
White, J. N. (2016). Psychology.

MSEd, K. C. (2023, March 13). Freud's Stages of Human Development. Verywell Mind.
[Link] 5962

MSEd, K. C. (2023, October 31). How the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Works. Verywell Mind.
[Link] e-myers-briggs-
types SAPA Project | Eysenck Personality Questionnaire ®. (n.d.).
[Link]

MSEd, K. C. (2024, May 21). Personality theories in Psychology. Verywell Mind.

[Link]

MSEd, K. C. (2024b, May 21). Personality theories in Psychology. Verywell Mind.

[Link]

Murray, A. L., Johnson, W., McGue, M., & Iacono, W. G. (2014). How are conscientiousness and
cognitive ability related to one another? A re-examination of the intelligence compensation
hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 17-22.
[Link]

Neda-Stepan, O., Giurgi-Oncu, C., Sălcudean, A., Bernad, E., Bernad, B.-C., & Enătescu, V. R. (2024).
The influence of personality traits on postpartum depression: A systematic review based on the neo-
ffi scale. Diseases, 12(5), 82. [Link]

Patel, B. (2023, July 7). HEXACO Personality Test: History, facets, benefits, drawbacks. Verywell Mind
[Link]

Personality.(n.d.).[Link]

Pervin, L. A., & John, O. P. (1997). Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed.). Guilford
Press.

Robins, R. W., Fraley, R. C., Roberts, B. W., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). A longitudinal study of
personality change in young adulthood. Journal of Personality, 69(4), 617-640.
[Link]

SAPA Project | Eysenck Personality Questionnaire ®. (n.d.).

Sarason, I. G. (2024, July 30). Personality assessment | Definition, Types, Importance, Uses, & Facts.
Encyclopedia Britannica.
Studocu. (n.d.). Eysenck’s three dimension of personality - Eysenck’s Personality Theory Eysenck
proposed a theory of - Studocu.
[Link] eysencks-three-
dimension-of-personality/10253840

[Link]. [Link] .html

Topping, G. D., & O'Gorman, J. G. (1997). Effects of faking set on validity of the NEO-FFI. Personality
and Individual Differences, 23(1), 117-124.

Touze, P. (2005). Personality and prediction of performance in the workplace. Le Travail Humain,
68(1), 37. [Link]

Within, P. (2021). Masters in Psychology Entrance Exam Preparation Book: By Power Within
Psychology.
Test 2: Rotter’s Internal/External Locus of Control Scale (Rotter’s LOC)

Aim/Objective

To understand and demonstrate the administration, scoring, and interpretation of Rotter’s

Internal/External Locus of Control Scale (Rotter’s LOC).

Introduction

Definitions

Locus of Control is a psychological concept which in simple words, tries to explain whether an
individual believes that they have control over their life or whether they believe that luck, fortune or
external factors have led to such outcomes in life. There are two types of Locus of Control – Internal
Locus of Control and External Locus of Control. Locus of Control is called LOC for short.

Julian B. Rotter (1966) defines, “Locus of control refers to the extent to which individuals believe that
they can control events affecting them. Internal locus of control is when individuals believe they have
control over their life, while external locus of control is when they believe external forces are in
control” (Rotter, 1966).

Albert Bandura (1997) states, “Locus of control is the extent to which individuals perceive that
outcomes are contingent upon their own actions (internal) versus external factors beyond their
control (external)” (Bandura, 1997).

Richard M. Ryan (2000) indicated, “Locus of control is a construct that represents how people
perceive their ability to influence or control their life events and outcomes, with internal locus
implying a belief in self-determination and external locus implying a belief in external determination”
(Ryan, 2000).

James M. Leary (2007), “Internal locus of control involves a belief that one’s actions are the primary
determinants of outcomes, whereas external locus of control involves the belief that outcomes are
influenced by external factors or chance” (Leary, 2007).

Internal Locus of Control is when an individual takes responsibility for their own actions and
decisions, success and failures. External Locus of Control on the other hand is when an individual
holds external factors, luck, fate, etc. responsible for what happens to them.

Theories

Rotter’s Social Learning Theory

Julian Rotter, an important figure in psychology, said that people have different views on who is
responsible for their own experiences. Everyone agrees that rewards and recognition are important
for learning skills and knowledge. However, what one person sees as a reward, another might view
differently. How someone sees the link between their actions and the reward is important in how
they react. The effect of a reward on behaviour is not just about getting rewarded; it also depends on
whether a person thinks their actions are connected to the reward. This connection can be strong or
weak, not just yes or no. If someone thinks a reward comes after their actions but is not entirely
caused by them, they might see it as luck or something controlled by others. This is called a belief in
external control. If a person believes that their actions directly affect the outcome, it is known as a
belief in internal control. This idea is important for understanding how people learn, and different
people have different levels of control over rewards in similar situations (Rotter, 1966). Locus of
control is the foundation of Rotter’s social learning theory, but as an independent theory it has had
important applications in educational, health and clinical psychology. It has led research on
motivation, learning, depression and addiction.

Levenson’s Multidimensional Locus of Control Theory

Hanna Levenson (1973) offered an alternative model to Rotter’s. “Lumping experiences of fate,
chance and powerful others together under the rubric of external control” (Rotter, 1966) was
questioned by Levenson, who suggested that the locus of control is a multidimensional approach to
measuring perceived control over life events. This opinion arises from concerns about merging
various influences—such as fate, chance, and the actions of influential people—under the idea of
external control, as described by Rotter. She identified two types of external orientation: one belief is
that the world operates in a random and chaotic manner, while the other is that the world is orderly
and predictable, combined with the idea that powerful individuals have control (Lefcourt, 1981). This
distinction leads to considering how chance and powerful people impact one’s life. For instance,
someone who believes that powerful figures control their life may also notice patterns in those
figures’ behaviours. They may think that by acting in specific ways, they can influence these powerful
individuals or gain rewards from them. The key takeaway is that having an “external” outlook isn’t
necessarily maladaptive. Additionally, a person who believes in chance as a form of control may think
and behave differently compared to someone who feels a complete lack of personal control.
Levenson thus developed three dimensions of expectancy: Internal (I Scale), Powerful Others (P
Scale) and Chance (C Scale) based on the idea that people with one external orientation- those who
believe in powerful others– will act and think differently from those with another external
orientation – those who believe the world is chaotic and unpredictable (Levenson, 1973).

Bandura’s Self- Efficacy Theory

Self-efficacy is a person's specific set of beliefs that determine a person's ability to carry out a plan of
action in an anticipated situation. (Bandura, 1977). It is closely linked to locus of control because
confidence in personal capabilities can shape one’s sense of control. Albert Bansdura suggested that
psychological methods can change how strongly someone believes in their own abilities. This belief
affects whether they will start a task, how much effort they will put in, and how long they will keep
going despite difficulties. Successfully facing challenges that seem threatening but are actually safe
can boost confidence and reduce anxiety. The theory identifies four key sources that shape our belief
in our abilities: performance outcomes, vicarious experiences, physiological feedback and verbal
persuasion. He states individuals develop their self-efficacy beliefs by interpreting information from
four main sources of influence (Bandura, 1977).
History

The first Internal External study was carried out by E. Jerry Phares (1957). Phares developed a Likert
type scale with 13 items related as external attitudes and 13 items as internal attitudes. Shepard,
Liverant in association with J.B. Rotter et. Al. undertook to broaden the tests by the construction of a
new forced choice questionnaire. Research on generalised anticipation of behaviour-reinforcement
contingencies started in the late 1950s, directed by Julian Rotter and assisted by other Ohio State
faculty members and graduate students. The test is important in knowing an individual’s personality
orientation. This can be helpful in predicting the individual behaviour as the locus of control concept
is related with many concepts like conformity, alienations, competence, achievement and ego control
i.e., the ideas of confidence and ability to deal with reality. It can be used as a screening instrument.
Hence, it can also be applied in clinical and counselling contexts. The I/E Locus of control scale was
developed in 1966 as a part of Rotter’s investigation into the social learning theory and “expectancy
value”. He was curious on how people viewed the connection between their acts and the results they
encountered in life.

Other Tests Measuring Locus of Control

Numerous additional instruments to measure locus of control have been produced since the release
of Rotter's Internal-External Locus of Control (Schepers, 2005).

Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Test

Reinforcement has long been recognized as a major determinant of behaviour. Considering the
extensive body of research with adults, it seemed appropriate to extend an investigation of the locus
of control variable to children. A well-designed measurement tool would help researchers better
understand how this concept relates to other factors. The main goal of this study was to create a
reliable and accurate way to measure generalised locus of control, which could be used for groups of
children of different ages. The Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale (Children’s Version),
developed in 1973, was given by Steven Nowicki and Bonnie Strickland. It was developed for
administration to children in 3rd to 12th grade. It is a 40 item paper-pencil self-test, with a
dichotomous answering style. It is a unidimensional measure with domains such as motivation, goal
orientation and perseverance, perceptions of self. It usually takes around 10-15 minutes to complete.
Since the construction of the scale, a number of studies across a diverse range of subject populations
have been completed (Nowicki, 1973).

Levenson Locus of Control Test

Hanna Levenson (1974) proposed that there are differences between people who perceive their
world as unpredictably chaotic and those who think that powerful individuals and institutions control
their lives and actions. In order to differentiate between these two types of external LOC, Levenson
developed her LOC measure composed of Internal (I), Chance ©, and Powerful Others (PO)
subscales. Each scale consists of eight items in a Likert format. The scale was developed for adults
and has been used extensively in research with various adult populations. It should take about 10-15
minutes to complete the test. The scale has been validated across diverse samples, including
different cultural contexts (Levenson, 1982).

Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scales

The Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scales were developed by Kenneth Wallston, Barbara
Wallston, and Ray DeVellis. The test is generally given to adolescents and adults typically 18 and
older. These scales have been created to measure how people believe their health-related outcomes
are controlled. These beliefs can be categorised into three main areas: whether the person thinks
they have personal control (internal), whether they believe it’s due to chance, or if they think that
powerful others, like doctors or authority figures, are in control. These translate into three subscales:
Internal Health Locus of Control, Powerful Others Health Locus of Control, and Chance Health Locus
of Control. The test has been widely used in both general and clinical populations, including people
dealing with chronic illnesses, to assess their beliefs regarding control over their health outcomes. It
consists of 18 items, 6 items by each dimension. All items are measured on 7-point unipolar scales,
anchored by “strongly disagree” and “strongly agree”. The scales were normed on a diverse
population and although primarily normed for adults, it can be adapted for younger populations
when necessary (Wallston et al., 1978).

Scheper’s Locus of Control Questionnaire

The fifth edition of the Locus of Control Questionnaire, created by Professor Johann M. Schepers
(Schaap et al., 2003) is another famous test to measure locus of control. The first edition of LCI was
developed in 1994 using attribution theory and social learning theory as frameworks of reference
(Schepers, 2005). Subsequent revisions were made in 1995, 1999, and 2003. The 2003 version served
as the basis for the LCI Fifth Edition (Schepers, 2005). According to Schaap et al. (2003), it assesses
three constructs: autonomy, external control, and internal control. The 45-item online test, which
takes 15 to 30 minutes to do, is offered by JvR online and is appropriate for both adults and students
(Schepers, 2005). Every item is presented as a question, and each response is rated on a seven-point
scale, the responder must express their response by placing a cross in the relevant box on the rating
scale (Schepers, 2005). Only the scales' end points are verbally anchored. Additionally, the
questionnaire has shown to be effective in a variety of ethnic groups and provides a useful tool for a
wide range of populations (Schaap et al., 2003).

Locus of Control Test by University of Virginia

The Locus of control test by the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business was developed by
James G. Clawson and Gerry Yemen in 2003 (Sutton, 2024). It’s a self report measure which has 20
true-or-false questions with no time limit. The scoring is done using the scoring key and the scores
can range between 0 and 100 (Sutton, 2024). The score identifies an individual as having a very
strong external locus of control, external locus of control, both external and internal locus of control,
internal locus of control, or very strong internal locus of control (Sutton, 2024).

Recent Developments

The Rotter’s Internal/External Locus of Control Scale has been extensively used in various fields for
research. It has been widely used in psychological research to explore the role of locus of control
with various psychological variables. This section discusses some recent researches that have focused
on the role of locus of control.

A study conducted by Sharma and Yadava (2024), looked at how different parenting styles
(authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive) had an effect on locus of control and emotional
intelligence in young adults. The results revealed that authoritative style of parenting was associated
with a higher internal locus of control and emotional intelligence. The study also highlighted that
young adults who had internal locus of control were found to more emotionally intelligent. These
findings showcased that forming an internal locus of control through authoritative parenting could
help in improving emotional regulation and understanding, and also suggested development of
parenting and teaching strategies that encourage autonomy and responsibility as they are important
in developing both emotional intelligence and a strong sense of personal control over life outcomes
(Sharma & Yadava, 2024).

Another study by Lincă and Matei (2023), looked at the relationship between locus of control and
learning styles. The study had utilised the Rotter’s Internal/External Locus of Control Scale to assess
locus of control of participants in relation to learning styles. The authors also found that students
who had an internal locus of control preferred active and practical learning while students who had
an external locus of control preferred theoretical learning. Further, the study also highlighted gender
differences, where it was observed that females had an internal locus of control and active learning,
while males had an external locus and theoretical learning. The findings of the study also suggested
for further forming of educational strategies designed to both psychological and gender factors could
help enhance student performance and engagement (Linca & Matei, 2023).

Further, in a paper by Olusa et al. (2024), a study was conducted to look at the relationship between
hardiness, locus of control, and test anxiety among undergraduate students at Redeemer’s
University. The findings of the study showed that both, hardiness and locus of control, were
associated and predicted test anxiety in students. In addition, findings also revealed that students
with internal locus of control had reported high levels of test anxiety while those with external locus
of control had comparatively lower levels of test anxiety. The study indicated the important role of
locus of control and hardiness in shaping students’ academic experiences. The findings also
suggested on the importance of developing internal locus of control in students to help overcome
test anxiety and improve overall academic performance (Olusa et al., 2024).

In another paper by Zadhasan (2024), studied and looked at the relationship between locus of
control and mindfulness as predictors of life satisfaction. The results revealed that both locus of
control and mindfulness had major contributions in predicting life satisfaction. Additionally, it was
also highlighted in the study that people with internal locus of control reported higher life
satisfaction and how it was related with feeling competent and enhanced well-being. The study
suggested further research and development of interventions based on mindfulness and locus of
control for enhancing well-being (Zadhasan, 2024).

Test Description

Julian B. Rotter developed the Rotter’s Internal/External Locus of Control Scale in 1966 to assess how
people believe they influence the events and situations in their lives. This scale helps determine
whether individuals attribute outcomes to an internal locus of control—meaning they feel
responsible for their actions—or to an external locus of control, where they believe external factors
like luck or fate play a larger role.

The test consists of 29 forced-choice questions, each with two statements. Test-takers must choose
the statement they agree with more. Out of these 29 items, 23 are scored, while the remaining six
are filler items (numbers 1, 8, 14, 19, 24, and 27). These fillers are designed to disguise the test’s
purpose and reduce the chance of socially desirable responses. The overall score reflects whether
the person tends to see events as controlled by their own actions (internal) or by external forces
(external).
The belief of having an internal locus of control often leads to higher motivation, greater self-
confidence, and better performance in areas like academics and mental health (Rotter, 1966). These
individuals are more likely to take ownership of their successes and failures, which helps them set
goals, make decisions, and persevere in challenging situations.

Conversely, those with an external locus of control are more likely to attribute their successes or
failures to factors beyond their control, such as luck or the actions of others. This outlook can lead to
feelings of helplessness, reduced motivation, and a more passive approach to life’s challenges.
People with a strong external locus of control might feel that their efforts are less important, which
can negatively impact how they handle stress and adversity (Phares, 1976).

The Rotter Locus of Control Scale usually takes about 10-15 minutes to complete. Research has
shown that the scale has good reliability, with internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) scores ranging
from 0.65 to 0.79. Additionally, test-retest reliability over periods of up to two months has been
found to be satisfactory, with correlations typically between 0.60 and 0.83.

The validity of Rotter’s scale has been well-supported by various studies. For example, Benassi,
Sweeney, and Dufour (1988) discovered that people with an internal locus of control tend to
experience lower levels of depression and perform better in school. Moreover, Skinner (1996)
highlighted that beliefs about control significantly influence how people manage difficulties and
recover from setbacks. Norms for the scale have been established across different populations, with
higher scores indicating a more external locus of control and lower scores reflecting a more internal
locus of control.

The Locus of Control test required careful standardisation that was adapted for this particular
evaluation tool. In order to assure validity and reliability, it required the creation of standardised
protocols for the test’s administration, scoring, and interpretation. Test administrators receive
comprehensive guidelines to ensure that every person taking the assessment has an identical
experience. The scoring criteria are meticulously designed to provide uniformity in the assessment of
responses concerning a person’s sense of control over life occurrences. The Locus of Control test
evaluates a person’s orientation towards locus of control by using norms that can be classified as
internal, external, or bi-modal. As they aid in determining an individual’s control orientation in
comparison to a representative group, these norms are crucial for interpreting test findings in a
meaningful way.

The Locus of Control test has demonstrated reasonable test-retest reliability. For 117 participants,
the test-retest reliability was evaluated .55 from first-year psychology students at Ohio State
University. According to the National stratified sample Purdue opinion poll of 1000 participants, the
internal consistency reliability is .69 (Franklin, 1963). This suggests that the test provides a
dependable measure of an individual’s belief in the control of their life events. Given that its items
are closely related to the concept of locus of control, the Locus of Control test demonstrates content
validity. It appeals to a person’s beliefs of their own control over life’s circumstances. Furthermore,
the exam has demonstrated discriminant validity and predictive validity in a variety of settings.

Advantages and Limitations of Rotter’s Internal-External Locus of Control

Advantages

The simplicity and accessibility of the Rotter's Internal-External Locus of Control is one of its
numerous advantages. Since the questionnaire is brief and simple to use, a variety of people, even
those without formal education or psychiatric training, can use it. Furthermore, it may be applied in a
range of contexts, such as organisational, educational, and therapeutic ones. Because the
questionnaire's results have been demonstrated to correlate with significant psychological and
behavioural effects, the predictive value is likewise strong. The notion of locus of control is culturally
universal, and although the questionnaire may need to be modified to fit various cultural contexts,
its fundamental ideas are still applicable. Last but not least, Rotter's Internal-External Locus of
Control has greatly advanced the study of psychology by serving as the foundation for several studies
exploring the ways in which locus of control affects all facets of life.

Limitations

The questionnaire, however, also reduces the notion of locus of control to a binary scale (internal vs.
external), which might not adequately reflect the variety of people’s control-related attitudes. It is
possible that individuals possess varying attitudes towards locus of control in distinct domains of
their lives (such as relationships, job, and health), a subtlety that the questionnaire might overlook.
Because of the questionnaire’s ease of use, some people may abuse it by extrapolating conclusions
about a person’s potential or character that aren’t based on other psychological or contextual
elements that influence their locus of control. Furthermore, the original questionnaire was created in
a Western setting that values autonomy and individualism. In societies that value collectivism, where
social bonds and community aspects of control are significant, an individual’s experience of control
may not be adequately captured by the questionnaire. Rotter’s Internal-External Locus of Control,
like many psychological questionnaires, is based on self-report data, which is prone to biases like
social desirability. It is also a forced choice questionnaire wherein the respondent may be forced to
pick a response even if it doesn’t match their opinion.

Application

Locus of control has generated much research in a variety of areas in psychology. The construct is
applicable to fields such as educational psychology, health psychology, industrial and organisational
psychology, and clinical psychology (Wikipedia contributors, 2024). According to a study by
Krishnakar, M.H., Chengti, S.S., and Chidanand, D.M. (2016), there is a significant difference in
students' mental health depending on their locus of control. The findings of a study conducted by
Dalal, N. and Gulrajani, M. (2020) also demonstrated a substantial impact of LOC on students' test
anxiety, with internal LOC students reporting lower test anxiety than external LOC students. Thus, the
concept of locus of control is crucial in understanding mental health. Along with neuroticism, self-
efficacy, and self-esteem, locus of control is also one of the four aspects of core self-evaluations, or
an individual's fundamental assessment of themselves. Since its initial investigation by Judge, Locke,
and Durham (1997), the idea of core self-evaluations has demonstrated its capacity to forecast a
number of work-related outcomes, including job performance and satisfaction (Wikipedia
contributors, 2024).

While Rotter’s Locus of Control Questionnaire has its uses, it is best utilised in conjunction with other
techniques of evaluation and with an awareness of its limitations in order to obtain a more thorough
understanding of an individual’s locus of control and its implications.
Methodology

Materials used

Materials used while conducting the test –

1. Rotter’s Locus of Control Item Booklet

2. Rotter’s Locus of Control Answer Key

3. Rotter’s Locus of Control Scoring Key

4. Stationery

Test-Taker Details

Ag
Name Gender Emotional State
e

H.M. 21 Female Calm

Administration and Instructions

Administration

The test-taker was invited and was made to sit comfortably before starting the conduction of the
test. Materials for the test were provided to the test-taker once they settled. The instructions to
writing the test were specified to the test-taker. The test-taker was asked if he/she had any doubts
and whether he/she understood well. The test-taker details were noted down on the test booklet.
Then, the test was given for administration. Once the administration one done, a check was done to
make sure that all the questions were answered / responded to, followed by the Post-Task Questions.
Then the test-taker was debriefed about the test, after which, they were thanked and escorted.

Instructions

This is a questionnaire to find out the way in which certain important events in our society effect
different people. Each item consists of pair of alternative A or B. please select one statement of each
pair (and only one), which you more strongly believe to be the case, as far as you are concerned.
Write ‘A’ or ‘B’ in the space provided. Be sure to select the one you actually believe to be more true
rather than the one you think, you should choose or the one you would like to be true. Please find a
single answer for every choice, even you find yourself agreeing with both the statements or neither
of the two in the pair.

Scoring

Out of 29 items in the Locus of Control scale, six items are filler items – number 1, 8, 14, 19, 24, 27
and hence not scored, meaning, these items were scored 0. Each response key was scored as point 1,
all the points were then added to get the score which was interpreted according to the following
classification.

Key

2-A; 3-B; 4-B; 5-B; 6-A; 7-A; 9-A; 10-B; 11-B; 12-B; 13-B; 15-B; 16-A; 17-A; 18-A; 20-A; 21-A; 22-B; 23-
A; 25-A; 26-B; 28-B; 29-A

Interpretation

The score of 0-8 is interpreted as having an Internal Locus of Control. The score of 9-12 is interpreted
as an in between score. The score of 13 and above is interpreted as having an External Locus of
Control.

Results and Interpretation

Results

Table 2.1 - Scores on Rotter’s Internal / External Locus of Control

Test
Test Interpretation
Score

7 Internal Locus of Control

Table 2.1 indicates test-taker’s score on the test. The test score obtained is 7. This score falls within
the range of 0-8, which is indicative of Internal Locus of Control.

Interpretation

Locus of Control is a psychological concept which refers to an individual’s degree to which they feel
they have control on their lives, irrespective of the external forces beyond their control. The test was
developed by Julian B. Rotter, in 1966, the concept being part of his social learning theory. Individuals
having an internal locus of control believe that their actions influence the outcomes directly, while
people having an external locus of control believe outcomes to be determined by external factors
such as luck, fate, or influence of others.
It is a self-report inventory, designed to assess an individual’s locus of control orientation along the
internal-external continuum. It is a widely used measure in psychology to understand personality and
behavior patterns. The test consists of 29 forced-choice items. 23 of these items are scores, leaving
the 6 to be the filler items which are not scored. Each item presents two statements and the one that
is most agreed to by the test-taker, must be chosen. The test items are designed in such a way that it
gauges whether the respondent attributes the outcomes in their life to internal factors or external
factors. About 10-15 minutes are taken to complete the test, depending on the individual’s speed in
reading and decision-making process.

The test-taker seemed calm and comfortable when they entered the test-taking room and when they
were taking the test. About 10 minutes were taken for the test-taker to complete the test. The test-
taker scored 7 on the test, which falls in the range of 0-8, indicating that the test-taker has an internal
locus of control. This is indicative of them being proactive, optimistic, being able to adapt to different
places, environment and situations, being independent, having leadership qualities, being
achievement-oriented, having resilience, holding accountability, having a problem-solving attitude,
having high self-efficacy, and finally holding responsibility of their own actions and decisions.

Conclusion

The test-taker scored 7 on the test, which falls in the range of 0-8, indicating that the test-taker has
an internal locus of control.

References

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman and Company.

Benassi, V. A., Sweeney, P. D., & Dufour, C. L. (1988). Is there a relation between locus of control
orientation and depression? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97(3), 357-367.
[Link]

Benassi, V. A., Sweeney, P. D., & Dufour, C. L. (1988). Is there a relation between locus of control and
depression? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97(3), 357-367. [Link]
843X.97.3.357

Findley, M. J., & Cooper, H. M. (1983). Locus of control and academic achievement: A literature
review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(2), 419-427. [Link]
3514.44.2.419

Gale, C. R., Batty, G. D., & Deary, I. J. (2008). Locus of control at age 10 years and health outcomes
and behaviors at age 30 years: The 1970 British Cohort Study. Psychosomatic Medicine, 70(4), 397-
403. [Link]

Krishnakar, M. H., Chengti, S. S., & Chidanand, D. M. (2016). A study on locus of control and mental
health of students. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 3(4), 57.

Leary, M. R. (2007). Motivational and cognitive aspects of the self: The role of self-esteem and self-
efficacy. In J. P. Forgas, K. Williams, & J. L. R. Johnson (Eds.), Social influence (pp. 37-60). Psychology
Press.
Lefcourt, H. M. (1981). Research with the Locus of Control Construct. Vol. 1.

Lefcourt, H. M. (1982). Locus of control: Current trends in theory and research. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Lefcourt, H. M. (1991). Locus of control. Academic Press.

Levenson, H. (1973). Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology, 41(3), 397-404. /[Link]

Lincă, F., & Matei, F. (2023). The relationship between locus of control and learning styles in
university education. Revista Academiei Forţelor Terestre, 28(1), 32-38. [Link]
2023-0005

Ng, T. W. H., Sorensen, K. L., & Eby, L. T. (2006). Locus of control at work: A meta‐analysis. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 27(8), 1057-1087. [Link]

Nowicki, S., & Strickland, B. R. (1973). A locus of control scale for children. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 40(1), 148–154. [Link]

Olusa, A. O., Mopa-Egbunu, A., Juwe, D. C., & Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Science,
Redeemer’s University Ede. (2024). TEST ANXIETY AMONG UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATES: THE
ROLE OF HARDINESS AND LOCUS OF CONTROL. Journal of Behavioral Studies, 5(1), 54-65.

Phares, E. J. (1976). Locus of control in personality. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1-28. [Link]

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
The Psychological Monographs, 80 (1), 1-28. [Link]

Ryan, R. M. (2000). The motivational nature of personality: Self-determination theory and the
internal-external dimension. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-
regulation (pp. 335-366). Academic Press.

Schaap, P., Buys, M. A., & Olckers, C. (2003). The construct validity of Schepers’ locus of control
inventory for black and white tertiary students. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29(1).
[Link]

Schepers, J. M. (2005). The construction of a normative scale of locus of control. SA Journal of

Industrial Psychology, 31(3). [Link]

Sharma, D., & Yadava, V. (2024). PARENTING STYLES, LOCUS OF CONTROL IN RELATION WITH
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AMONG YOUNG ADULTS. In Amity Institute of Psychology and Allied
Sciences, International Journal of Interdisciplinary Approaches in Psychology (IJIAP). 2(5), 164-167.

Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to the development of coping theory and research. In M. Zeidner & N.
S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications (pp. 116-147). New York: Wiley.

Strickland, B. R. (1973). Locus of control: Where have we been and where are we going? In Paper
Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association (Vol. 81st, p. 22)
[Conference-proceeding]. [Link]
Sutton, J., PhD. (2024, August 5). The locus of control: tests, scales & questionnaires.
[Link]. [Link]

Wallston, B. S. (1992). Hocus-pocus, the focus isn't strictly on locus: Rotter's social learning theory
modified for health. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16(2), 183-199.
[Link]

Wallston, K. A., Wallston, B. S., & DeVellis, R. (1978). Development of the Multidimensional Health
Locus of Control (MHLC) scales. Health Education Monographs, 6(1), 160–170.
[Link]

Wikipedia contributors. (2024, July 6). Locus of control. Wikipedia.

[Link]

Wilkinson, W. W. (2007). The structure of the Levenson locus of control scale in young adults:
Comparing item and parcel indicator models. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1416–
1425. [Link]

Zadhasan, Z. (2024). Predictors of Life satisfaction: The role of mindfulness and locus of control.
Deleted Journal, 2(1), 4-9. [Link]
Test 3 - Emotional Intelligence Scale (EIS)

Aim/Objective

To understand and demonstrate the administration, scoring, and interpretation of

Emotional Intelligence Scale (EIS).

Introduction

Definitions

Emotions

“Emotions are physiological, and mental stirred-up states, as a result of linear adjustments that are
accompanied by effective experiences.” (Crow and Crow, 1973)

Buck (1985) has defined “emotion as the process by which motivational potential is realized or ‘read
out’ when activated by challenging stimuli.”

Intelligence

According to Sternberg (1985), “Intelligence is the ability to adapt, shape, and select the
environment to accomplish one's goals and those of one's society and culture.”

D. Wechsler (1958, p.7) defines intelligence as, “Intelligence is the aggregate or global capacity of the
individual to act purposefully, to think rationally and to deal effectively with his environment.”

Emotional Intelligence

Salovey and Mayer (1997) defined emotional intelligence as "the ability to perceive emotions,
integrate emotions to facilitate thought, understand emotions, and to regulate emotions to promote
personal growth.”

Daniel Goleman (1998) defines “Emotional Intelligence/Quotient as the ability to recognize our
feelings and those of others, to motivate ourselves, and to handle our emotions well to have the best
for ourselves and our relationships.”

Theories
Mayer- Salovey- Caruso Ability Model

In 1990, Dr. Peter Salovey and John D. Mayer defined emotional intelligence as the “the ability to
monitor one’s own and other’s feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and use this
information to guide one’s thinking and actions” (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Mayer, Salovey and Caruso
put forth the ability model of emotional intelligence which was the first model of Emotional
Intelligence. This model defines emotional intelligence in terms of ability rather than a trait or
characteristic. The model sees Emotional Intelligence as a collection of emotional abilities that can be
divided into four “branches” arranged from more basic psychological processes to higher
psychologically integrated and complex skills developed over a period of life. (Joseph, 2015)

The four branches of the ability model are (1) Perception of emotion, (2) Use of emotion to facilitate
thought, (3) Understanding of emotion, (4) Management of emotion in oneself and others.
Perception of emotion essentially means the people’s capacity to identify emotions in themselves
and others using facial expressions, tone of voice, and body language. People who are good at
perceiving emotion are able to express emotion accordingly and communicate emotional needs
(Brackett, n.d.). The second component includes using emotions to facilitate thought which means
how emotion affects the cognitive system and can be used for effective problem solving, reasoning,
decision making and other cognitive abilities. Emotions can also disrupt our cognition by creating
anxiety and fear but it can also prioritise the cognitive system to attend to what is important in a
given situation (Joseph, 2015). The third component includes understanding emotion which refers to
the ability to label emotions appropriately with words and understand the relationship between
different emotions. It includes defining complex emotions and the ability to understand how
emotions might combine, change and manifest over time (Brackett, n.d.) (Models of Emotional
Intelligence, 2016). The fourth component is managing emotions which essentially means the skill to
experience both positive and negative emotions, recognize the value of feeling certain emotions in a
specific situation and using various strategies to regulate one’s emotions and cope well in difficult
circumstances (Brackett, n.d.).

In order to measure these four emotion skills, Mayer, Salovey and Caruso developed Mayer-Salovey-
Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). The MSCEIT is a 141-item test comprising eight tasks,
two per emotional ability (Brackett, n.d.). Mayer, Salovey and Caruso are considered as some of the
most important figures in the study of Emotional Intelligence (Models of Emotional Intelligence,
2016).

David Goleman’s Theory of Emotional Intelligence

Daniel Goleman defines Emotional Intelligence “as a capacity for recognizing our own and other’s
feelings, for motivating ourselves, and for managing our emotions, both within ourselves and in our
relationships”. He is known for challenging the traditional view of Intelligence Quotient (IQ) through
research on brain functioning and based on that promoting the concept of Emotional Intelligence
(Goleman, 1998). He wrote a book in 1995 titled “Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more
than IQ” which became quite famous in the field of emotional intelligence. Daniel Goleman
broadened Mayer and Salovey’s four-branch system to incorporate five essential elements of
emotional intelligence. (Hcsuper, 2022)

The first element is Self-awareness which refers to the ability to identify or understand one’s
emotions and being vigilant about different emotional reactions. It includes recognizing that
emotions and actions are related and understanding the impact of one’s moods on others. (BPsySc,
2024). The second element includes Self- regulation which means the ability to manage and regulate
emotions like controlling temper, controlling stress, ability to think clearly under pressure and
handling impulses well. It also includes being resilient, coping with the dynamics and inconsistency of
life and taking responsibility for one's own emotions and actions (Goleman, 1998). The third
component includes motivation which means the innate drive to meet personal needs and goals. It
refers to the ability to utilise emotions to achieve goals, commitment towards it, to take initiative and
being optimistic. The fourth element is empathy which essentially means understanding others’
emotions and point of view non-judgmentally both at emotional and cognitive level. Being
empathetic also means understanding the power dynamics that influence social relationships as this
can guide how people interact with others (BPsySc, 2024). This leads to the fifth element which is
social skills. It refers to the skills necessary to interact with others in social settings like good
communication skills, listening skills, co-operation, conflict resolution. It also includes the ability to
inspire and motivate others in the team (Goleman, 1998).

According to Goleman, those who possess these characteristics are successful and are able to
function well in a workplace setting and in society at large. They report good subjective well-being
and do well in their interpersonal relationship (Goleman, 1998). In order to measure emotional
intelligence, he developed Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI). He emphasised the fact that
people are not born with these skills but it is learnt and improved throughout one’s life.

Bar-on’s Mixed Model of Emotional Intelligence

Reuven Bar-On proposed a model with personality dimensions, highlighting the interdependence of
the ability components of emotional intelligence with personality traits and their relevance towards
well-being (Dhani & Sharma,2016). Bar-On (1997) defines EI as "an array of cognitive capabilities,
competencies, and skills that influence one's ability to succeed in coping with environmental
demands and pressures." The Bar-On model (1997) describes EI as a cross-section of interrelated
emotional and social competencies, skills and facilitators that impact intelligent behavior. This Model
distinguishes the ability to affect the emotions and behaviors of others (social skills), from the ability
to recognize and regulate one's own emotions (EI) (Emotional Intelligence: Mixed Model, n.d.).

The original model has 5 core dimensions and 15 components (Kanesan & Fauzan, 1997). The first
dimension describes the Intrapersonal skills which comprise of self-regard, emotional self-awareness,
assertiveness, self-actualization, and independence (Neubauer & Freudenthaler, 2005). The second
dimension of interpersonal skills consists of empathy, social responsibility and interpersonal
relationship (Kanesan & Fauzan, 1997). The thirds dimension adaptability comprises of problem-
solving, reality testing and flexibility (Neubauer & Freudenthaler, 2005). Stress management, the
fourth dimension, consists of stress tolerance and impulse control while the last dimension of
general mood consists of happiness and optimism (Neubauer & Freudenthaler, 2005).

Bar-On improved his initial model in 2000 by reclassifying the elements into constituent elements
(emotional self-awareness, assertiveness, empathy, interpersonal relationships, problem-solving,
flexibility, reality testing, stress tolerance, impulse control) and facilitator elements (independence,
self-actualization, social responsibility, optimism, happiness) (Neubauer & Freudenthaler, 2005).

Trait theory of Emotional Intelligence

Petrides and Furnham (2001) explained that emotional intelligence is attached to how one perceives
their ability and the tendency to behave. They therefore proposed the trait theory of emotional
intelligence which included personality dimension to measure EI. Trait EI is defined as a constellation
of emotional self-perceptions located at the lower levels of personality hierarchies and measured via
the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire (Petrides, 2010). This model is different from the
earlier models of EI as this model conceptualises emotional intelligence as being an inherent part of
an individual’s personality.

According to Petrides (2010), trait emotional intelligence encompasses 15 emotion-related facets

across personality characteristics which are categorised into four main factors: well-being, self-
control, emotionality, and sociability. Well-being is linked to improved adaptability. Self-control refers
to the ability to regulate one's urges and desires. High emotionality indicates the ability to perceive
and express emotions so as to form and maintain relationships (Petrides, 2010). Finally, sociability
impacts social interactions and influence. Adaptability and self-motivation contribute to overall
emotional intelligence (Petrides, 2010).

There have been certain controversies around the trait theories stating that it is trying to re-
conceptualize emotional intelligence into the popular big 5 personality factor and also that this
theory is very similar to the general personality factor theory (Kanesan & Fauzan, 1997).

History

Over the last century, there has been a considerable evolution in the field of intelligence and
emotion studies. Research on intelligence from 1900 to 1969 concentrated on improving the
psychometric technique, whereas studies on emotions were conducted mostly in isolation, with
discussions mainly on whether emotions or physiological reactions happened first. A view that
acknowledged cultural effects replaced Darwin's evolutionary theory of emotional reactions at this
time, and the idea of social intelligence also began to take shape. From the years 1970 to
1989, Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences (1983), which emphasized both intrapersonal and
interpersonal intelligence, was accompanied by the rise of the discipline of cognition and affect,
which studied the relationship between ideas and emotions, as cited in Dhani & Sharma, 2016.

Emotional Intelligence (EI) appeared first in an unpublished doctoral dissertation by American

researcher Wayne Payne in 1985. The dissertation was titled "A study of emotion: developing
emotional intelligence – self-integration; relating to fear, pain, and desire (theory, structure of reality,
problem-solving, contraction/expansion, tuning in/coming out/letting go)." A significant
development occurred in 1987 when Keith Beasley used the term EQ, which stands for "Emotional
Quotient," in an article in Mensa Magazine. (Atre, n.d.)

Important elements including emotionality, empathy, and social skills were also discovered through
empirical research on social intelligence. In the early 1990s, Mayer and Salovey(1990) published their
article, “Emotional Intelligence” in the journal, “ Imagination, Cognition, and Personality”, formally
introducing emotional intelligence (EI), and its rising acceptance in the brain sciences, and the first
ability assessment supported this theory. (Atre, n.d.)

Daniel Goleman's book "Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ," (1995), sparked
widespread interest among both the management community and the general public. This bestseller
significantly contributed to the popularization of the concept by presenting a framework of
Emotional Intelligence comprising four components: Self-Awareness, self-management, social
awareness, and Relationship Management. (Atre, n.d.).

In his subsequent book "Social Intelligence – The New Science of Human Relationships,"(2006),
Goleman further advanced the field of emotional intelligence. He reorganized the four components
of emotional intelligence into two sets and proposed that Emotional Intelligence focuses on Self-
Awareness and Self-Management, while Social Intelligence centers on Social Awareness and
Relationship Management. (Atre, n.d.) Research on emotional intelligence (EI) has been developing
since 1998. New measurements and conceptual improvements have been made, and an expanding
body of peer-reviewed literature has established the field's standing in both academic and practical
settings (Dhani & Sharma, 2016).

Other tests measuring emotional intelligence

Along with the Emotional Intelligence scale multiple other scales can also be used to get a more
comprehensive view. Following are some of the scales:

Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (Bar-On EQ-i)

The scale is a self-report inventory consisting of 133 items which are statements that a test-taker has
to express their views to. The scale was first published in 1996. Similar to the EIS, the Bar-On EQ-i
makes use of a 5 point response scale. Responses range from 1(very seldom or not true of me) to 5
(very often true of me or true of me) The test is not time bound and is completed approximately
within 30 minutes. The test is suitable to be conducted on individuals who are 17 years and older.

The validity indicators that the test measures include self-regard , emotional self-awareness,
assertiveness, independence, empathy, social responsibility, interpersonal relationship, stress
tolerance, impulse control, reality testing, flexibility, problem solving, self-actualization, optimism
and happiness. The effectiveness of this test has been confirmed by the fairly high degree of overall
correlation (R=.69) between observer ratings of the behavior assessed by the EQ-i™ and the scores of
185 individuals who completed this instrument. (Bar-On, R., 1997)

The scoring of the test involves tabulating the raw scores into standard scores where the mean is
taken to 100 and standard deviation is taken to be 15.

The emotional intelligence scores are interpreted as per the following range where a score of 90-110
is considered within the average range.A score below 90 may indicate areas where emotional
intelligence skills could be strengthened. On the other hand a score above 110 suggests above-
average emotional intelligence skills.

The scale not only measures emotional intelligence but emotional-social intelligence. There are
multiple other variations of the tests developed by Bar-On. The Bar-On EQ-i:125 and Bar-On EQ-i:S
are shortened versions of the original scale with 125 items and 51 items respectively. The Bar-On
Emotional Quotient Inventory – 360 and the The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory Youth Version
are also some revised versions applicable to different population ranges.

The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT)

The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) was first published in 2002. It was
developed by John D. Mayer, Peter Salovey, and David R. Caruso. It is an ability-based assessment
designed to evaluate the four components of emotional intelligence as outlined by Mayer and
Salovey. The MSCEIT was developed within the framework of intelligence testing that grew out of the
advancing scientific understanding of emotions and their functions. It builds on the foundation of the
first ability measure specifically created to assess emotional intelligence, the Multifactor Emotional
Intelligence Scale (MEIS).It consists of 141 items and is not time bound. It takes approximately 35-40
minutes to complete the test. The test measures 4 branches of Emotional Intelligence:
Perceiving Emotions: Recognizing and identifying emotions in oneself and others, often through
facial expressions, body language, and vocal tone.

Facilitating Thought: Using emotions to guide thinking and decision-making, understanding how
emotions can influence problem-solving and creativity.

Understanding Emotions: Interpreting the meaning and significance of emotions, recognizing how
emotions can change and evolve over time.

Managing Emotions: Regulating emotions effectively, responding to emotions in a constructive and

adaptive way, and managing emotional stress.

Similar to the Bar-On EQ-i the MSCEIT is also administered to ages 17 and older. MSCEIT provides 15
main scores: Total EI score, two Area scores, four Branch scores, and eight Task scores. In addition to
these 15 scores, there are three Supplemental scores (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002). A revised
version of the test The MSCEIT v2.0 is an ability-based test designed to measure emotional
intelligence (EI) based on the similar four branch model was published in 2003. It assesses actual
emotional intelligence skills, rather than self-reported traits and provides a standardized and reliable
assessment of emotional intelligence.

A study found that the total scores had an adequate Cronbach's alpha of .79, but many scales had
low internal consistency, with alphas ranging from .34 to .77. The MSCEIT is considered a reliable and
valid measure for testing emotional intelligence.

The Singh and Chaddha EQ Test

The Singh and Chaddha EQ Test consists of 22 items measuring emotional sensitivity, maturity and
competency. This test is a self-report measure published in 2001 designed to assess emotional
quotient (EQ) or emotional intelligence. It was developed by Dr. Dalip Singh and Dr. N.K. Chadha, this
test is widely used in India and other regions.

The test is a self-report inventory wherein test-takers answer questions about their own emotional
experiences and behaviors. The test presents hypothetical situations to assess how individuals
handle emotions and interpersonal relationships. Similar to most other scales, responses are scored
on a Likert scale, and a total EQ score is calculated.

The test often measures multiple aspects of EQ, including: Emotional Awareness which involves
recognizing and understanding one's own emotions. Emotional Management involves regulation of
emotions effectively. Empathy refers to skills of understanding and sharing the feelings of others, and
Social Skills that involve building and maintaining relationships. The total EQ is interpreted as per the
following rangers where P90 indicates very high EQ, P75- indicates high EQ, P50 indicates moderate
EQ, P40 indicates low EQ and a score of P20 indicates that the test taker must be advised to take the
test some other day. The Singh and Chaddha EQ Test is designed for adults. While there's no specific
age range mentioned in the literature, it's generally suitable for individuals over the age of 18.

The Schutte Self Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SSEIT)

The Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SSEIT) is a widely used instrument to measure
emotional intelligence (EI). It was developed by Dr. Nicola Schutte and her colleagues in 1998 and is
based on the EI model by Salovey and Mayer. The SSEIT is a self-report measure wherein test-takers
rate themselves on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) for 33 statements related to
emotional intelligence. The SSEIT measures four components of emotional intelligence: Emotion
perception which is the ability to identify and understand emotions in oneself and others. Utilizing
emotions involves the ability to use emotions to facilitate thought and decision-making. It assesses
the ability of managing Self-relevant emotions and regulating one's own emotions as well as
Managing Others' emotions i.e. the ability to understand and manage the emotions of others.
Schutte and her colleges report a reliability rating of 0.90 for their emotional intelligence scale. The EI
score, overall, is fairly reliable for adults and adolescents; however, the utilizing emotions sub-scale
has shown poor reliability (Ciarrochi, Chan & Bajgar, 2001)

The Profile of Emotional Competence (PEC)

The Profile of Emotional Competence (PEC) published in 2013 is a self-report measure designed to
assess individual differences in emotional intelligence (EI). It was developed by Brasseur and
Mikolajczak to measure both intra-personal (self) and inter-personal (others) EI. The test contains 50
items and assesses five core emotional competences of identification, understanding, expression,
regulation, and use of emotions. The PEC assesses these five competencies distinctly for both one's
own emotions and the emotions of others. The PEC is highly reliable with a Cronbach Alpha value of
0.92.

Reliability for Intra emotional competence was found to be 0.78 and inter emotional competence
was 0.80. A shorter version of the test that consists of 20 items can also be administered. The scores
on the PEC are presented as a percentile rank. This means that a score of 75, for example, indicates
that the individual's performance on that specific competency is higher than 75% of the normative
sample.

Recent developments

A study explored the relationship between Emotional Intelligence and subjective well-being (SWB)
reviewing 25 studies with a combined sample size of 8,520 participants. The findings revealed a
significant positive correlation between EI and SWB, indicating that individuals with higher EI tend to
experience greater well-being. Moreover, EI was found to be more closely associated with the
cognitive component of SWB, (evaluating life satisfaction, than with the affective component (how
often people experience positive versus negative emotions; Sánchez-Álvarez et al., 2015). Thus, this
research aligned with earlier studies suggesting that emotionally intelligent individuals are better
equipped to manage stress, maintain strong social connections, and adapt to challenges, thereby
enhancing their overall well-being (Schneider et al., 2013; Zeidner et al., 2012, as cited in Sánchez-
Álvarez et al., 2015).

Furthermore, another study quantitatively assessed the relationship between emotional intelligence
(EI) and romantic relationship satisfaction by tapping on various aspects of romantic relationships,
such as satisfaction, quality, and marital adjustment. The results indicated that there was a significant
overall correlation between EI and romantic relationship satisfaction. EI may enhance relationship
satisfaction in several ways such as improving communication, conflict resolution, and cooperation
between partners (Hajihasani & Sim, 2018; Pollock et al., 2017, as cited in Jardine et al., 2022). High
EI individuals also tend to handle emotional issues more effectively, engage in better empathic
perspective-taking, and foster cooperation, all of which may contribute to more satisfying romantic
relationships (Schutte et al., 2001, as cited in Jardine et al., 2022).

Besides, a study by Cabello et al., (2016), investigated how age and gender impact Ability Emotional
Intelligence (EI). The analysis revealed that gender significantly influenced EI, with women scoring
higher than men on total ability EI and across all four EI branches. Age also played a role, with an
inverted-U relationship observed - younger and older adults exhibited lower EI scores compared to
middle-aged adults. These findings highlight the substantial effects of both gender and age on ability
EI, suggesting that emotional intelligence evolves differently across the lifespan and between
genders (Cabello et al., 2016).

Lastly, a recent study also investigated whether EI can be effectively developed through the formal EI
training programs that have become increasingly popular among organisations and universities. By
conducting two separate meta-analyses—one for pre-post experimental designs (with a total sample
of 2,136) and the other for treatment-control designs (with a total sample of 2,174)—the study
quantified the effect of training on EI. The results indicated that EI can indeed be enhanced through
systematic training, with both analyses revealing a moderate and positive effect of training. This
supports the notion that EI is a malleable trait, suggesting that investing in EI training programs is
worthwhile for organisations and institutions seeking to improve emotional intelligence among
adults (Mattingly & Kraiger, 2019).

Test Description

Emotional Intelligence Scale (EIS) developed by Hyde, Pethe, and Dhar (2002) measures emotional
intelligence across 10 factors with 34 items which are to be rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging
from ‘strongly agree’ (5) to ‘strongly disagree’ (1) (Hyde et al., 2002).

The 10 factors are self-awareness, empathy, self-motivation, emotional stability, self-motivation,

emotional stability, managing relations, integrity, self-development, value orientation, commitment
and altruistic behaviour. Self-awareness (A) is being aware of oneself. Empathy (E) is feeling and
understanding the other person. Self-motivation (C) is being motivated internally. Emotional Stability
(D) is the capacity to maintain an emotional balance during stressful events. Managing relations (E) is
the ability to communicate clearly and maintain good relations, avoiding conflicts. Integrity (F) is the
adherence to moral principles. Self- development (G) is the behaviour that results in an improved
identity. Value orientation (H) are the principles and ideas influencing perception. Commitment (I) is
the act of adhering to certain events. Altruistic behaviour (J) is the prosocial behaviour of helping.

The factorwise items serial numbers are presented below.

[Link] Factor Item Serial Number Total

.

A Self-awareness 6, 12, 18, 29 4

B Empathy 9, 10, 15, 20, 25 5

C Self-motivation 2, 4, 7, 8, 31, 34 6

D Emotional Stability 14, 19, 26, 28 4

E Managing relations 1, 5, 11, 17 4

F Integrity 16, 27, 32 3

G Self-development 30, 33 2
 H Value orientation 21, 22 2

I Commitment 23, 24 2

J Altruistic behavior 3, 13 2

34

Total Items

For the process of standardization, the scale was administered on 200 executives and the scores
obtained were subjected to factor analysis and ten factors were identified. As mentioned above,
these are self-awareness, empathy, and self-motivation, emotional stability, managing relations,
integrity, self-development, value orientation, commitment and altruistic behaviour.

The mean score obtained was 68 with a standard deviation of 16. This lead to an interpretation
system that if the total score is 85 and above, it is considered as high emotional intelligence. If it is
between 52 and 84, it is considered as normal and if 51 and below, it is considered as low emotional
intelligence.

The reliability of the scale was determined by calculating reliability coefficient on a sample of 200
participants. The split-half reliability coefficient was found to be 0.88.

The scale appears to have high face validity and a high content validity as all items are related to the
variable under focus.

It is evident from the assessment of judges/experts that the items of the scale are directly related to
the concept of Emotional Intelligence. In order to find out the validity from the coefficient of
reliability, the reliability index was calculated, which indicated high validity on account of being 0.93
(Garett, 1981). Thus, the Emotional Intelligence Scale has a high reliability, with a Cronbach's alpha
coefficient of 0.9 for the 34-item scale, and high validity (Schutte et al., 1998).

Advantages and Limitations of the Emotional Intelligence Scale (EIS)

Advantages

The Emotional Intelligence Scale (EIS) questionnaire is a standardised test, making it easy for test
users to evaluate and interpret the results (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018). It is a self-report test consisting
of 34 items, (Hyde et al., 2002) which are easy to understand and takes a shorter time to complete
(on average about 10-15 minutes), making it cost-effective. The test is not lengthy, so it does not
cause subjective fatigue to the test-taker, which is found to be the case in longer tests (Akerman &
Kanfer, 2009), and the results are consistent with the essence of the test-taker. The test has shown
high validity and reliability (Hyde et al., 2002), which means that the results obtained are reliable and
can adequately measure emotional intelligence. Conducted at an individual level, the EIS provides
detailed assessments, including behaviour during the test, and allows for standardised comparisons
across individuals (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2013) and also contributes to the side-by-side analysis of each
factor of EI due to the test’s facet analysis. Additionally, the test’s design accommodates cultural
contexts, particularly the emotional intelligence of the Indian population, which adds to its
effectiveness.
Limitations

The Emotional Intelligence Scale (EIS) is based on Daniel Goleman’s model of Emotional
intelligence, which has been criticised due to its lack of empirical evidence. (Peltier, 2011). The test is
also based on the trait-based measure which measures an individual’s perception regarding their
emotional abilities and can be prone to self-biases. The self-biases could also be attributed to the fact
that the test is self-reported and heavily relies on the test-taker’s willingness to answer honestly
(Matthews, et al., 2004; MacCann, et al., 2003). These models have been shown to have low
predictive validity as they do not objectively measure emotional intelligence like the ability tests,
such as the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) therefore, are not
dependable in predicting the behaviour patterns in the future (Harms & Crede, 2010). Although
Emotional intelligence scale has high content and face validity, the lack of validity scales established
can lead to faulty results as the test-taker might give socially desirable responses or even respond
randomly, this can be an even higher possibility considering that the test can be prone to the
shortcoming of self-report tests (Hyde, et al., 2002).

Applications

The Emotional Intelligence scale (EIS) can be used to assess an individual's capacity to appraise and
regulate their emotions (Salovey & Mayer, 1990), the EIS can be used in the area of personal
development, which allows individuals to gain insight into themselves, their strengths and weakness
which can aid their journey towards self-growth. The scale can also contribute when applied on an
organisational level, to assess the EI of potential employees, as a higher EI is linked to better conflict
resolution and openness to new points of view (George, 2000), and can contribute to team building.
The EIS can also be used to find potential leaders, as higher EI is related to effective leadership
(Jordan & Troth, 2004). It could also be potentially used in clinical assessment, as it is an individual
and facet-based test, which can be used to find out how well they can recognize and regulate their
emotions.

Methodology

Materials Used

Materials used while conducting the test –

1. Emotional Intelligence Scale Manual

2. Emotional Intelligence Scale Item Booklet

3. Scoring Key

4. Stationery

Test-Taker’s Details

Name Ag Gender Emotional State

 e

N.G. 20 Male Calm and Relaxed

Administration and Instructions

Administration

The test-taker is invited and is made to sit comfortably before starting the conduction of the test.
After adequate rapport is established, materials for the test are provided (i.e. Emotional intelligence
scale item booklet and stationery). The test-taker's details are noted and the instructions for writing
the test are specified. The test- taker is asked if he/she has understood and has any doubts regarding
the same. After ensuring the test-taker has understood the instructions, the test for its
administration is given. After the test is conducted, a check is done to see whether all the items have
been marked or not. Later post-task questions are asked followed by debriefing the test-taker. The
test-taker is finally thanked and escorted.

Instructions

Here some statements are given and for every statement you have to express your views by making
tick mark on any one cell of the five alternative 1. Strongly agree, 2. Agree, 3. Uncertain, 4. Disagree,
5. Strongly disagree. There is no right and wrong answer, so please give your response
on all the items.

Scoring

The Scoring of the emotional intelligence scale is done by reverse score. All the items of the test,
Option 1 - Strongly Agree has = 5 points, Option 2 - Agree has = 4 points, Option 3 - Neutral has = 3
points, Option 4 - Disagree has = 2 points, Option 5 - Strongly Disagree has = 1 point.

As per the manual, the items are first scored as per their factors from the item serial number
mentioned in the manual. The score on each factor is firstly taken as a raw score. Later all the raw
scores or scores on each factor are summed up together to draw the total score of the emotional
intelligence scale.

Interpretation

The score of – 85 and above indicates High Range of Emotional Intelligence, 52-84 indicates Normal
Range of Emotional Intelligence, 51 and below indicates Low Range of Emotional Intelligence. Total
score and factor scores are compared using the table given in the manual. Different norms and
categories are used to assess an individual's EQ and differentiate whether an individual is high on
Emotional intelligence or low on emotional intelligence.

Results and Interpretation

Results
Table 3.1 - Scores of the test-taker on factors of Emotional Intelligence Scale and the overall scores on
the test

Factor Factor Name Score Interpretation

A Self-Awareness 17 High

B Empathy 21 High

C Self-Motivation 25 High

D Emotional Stability 15 High

E Managing Relations 17 High

F Integrity 11 High

G Self-Development 6 High

H Value Orientation 7 High

I Commitment 8 High

J Altruistic Behaviour 7 High

Table 3.1 indicates the score of the test-taker on each dimension of the emotional intelligence scale
along with an overall score on the scale. The test-taker’s overall score on the emotional intelligence
scale is 134 and the score on the factors are Self-Awareness = 17, Empathy = 21, Self-Motivation = 25,
Emotional Stability = 15, Managing Relations = 17, Integrity = 11, Self-Development = 6, Value
Orientation = 7, Commitment = 8, Altruistic Behaviour = 7.

Interpretation

Daniel Goleman, defined Emotional Intelligence as the ability to recognize our own feelings and
those of others, to motivate ourselves, and to manage emotions well in ourselves and in our
relationships.

The test, Emotional Intelligence Scale, was given by Anukool Hyde, Sanjyot Pethe and Upinder Dhar.
The EIS is a self-report measure which helps assess emotional intelligence based on Salovey and
Mayer’s model (1990), which further, was popularised by Daniel Goleman. The test contains 34
items. The participants are to respond to each item on a 5-point Likert scale, which ranges from 1 –
Strongly Disagree, to 5 – Strongly Agree. The test items assess various aspects of emotional
intelligence, such as emotional awareness, emotional regulation, and emotional utilization.
Goleman’s model of EI is based on five key components. They are - Self-awareness, Self-regulation,
Motivation, Empathy, Social skills. The test approximately takes about 10-15 minutes to be
completed. Then, the total score is obtained by summing the responses to all the items.

The score 17 on the Self-Awareness Factor is indicative that the test taker is well aware about oneself
and the surroundings. This is interpreted as a high score. A score of 17 on this factor suggests that
the individual has a strong understanding of their own emotions, thoughts, and behavior, as well as
the surrounding environment. This high level of self-awareness enables better decision-making and
emotional regulation (Goleman, 1995).

The score 21 on the Empathy Factor is indicative that there is a great understanding of the feelings
and emotions of others. This is interpreted as a high score. Scoring 21 on the Empathy factor
indicates that the individual excels at understanding and sharing the feelings of others. They are
likely to be emotionally attuned to others and possess strong interpersonal skills, which aids in
fostering healthy relationships (Salovey & Mayer, 1990).

The score 25 on the Self-Motivation Factor is indicative of having greater internal motivation. This is
interpreted as a high score. With a score of 25, the individual demonstrates a high degree of internal
motivation. They are likely to set personal goals and pursue them with determination, irrespective of
external rewards or recognition (Deci & Ryan, 1985).

The score 15 on the Emotional Stability Factor is indicative of having an ability to maintain emotional
balance and steadiness. This is interpreted as a high score. A score of 15 indicates a well-developed
capacity to manage emotions effectively, even in stressful situations. This high score shows the
individual's ability to maintain emotional balance and calmness in challenging environments (Bar-On,
1997).

The score 17 on the Managing Relations Factor is indicative that the test-taker knows how to
maintain emotional balance and steadiness. This is interpreted as a high score. Scoring 17 on the
Managing Relations factor implies that the person is adept at building and sustaining healthy
relationships. This includes being emotionally supportive, handling conflicts maturely, and ensuring
positive social interactions (Goleman, 1998).

The score 11 on the Integrity Factor is indicative of being honest and having strong moral principles.
This is interpreted as a high score. A score of 11 shows that the individual places great importance on
honesty and moral principles. Integrity involves adhering to ethical standards and acting consistently
with one's values, even when no one is watching (Covey, 1990).

The score 6 on the Self-Development Factor is indicative of personal growth and advancement. This
is interpreted as a high score. A score of 6 in Self-Development indicates that the individual is
committed to personal growth and strives for continuous improvement. This may reflect a mindset
that values learning and adapting to new challenges (Maslow, 1954).

The score 7 on the Value Orientation Factor is indicative of having principles and ideas as well as
influencing perception. This is interpreted as a high score. A score of 7 suggests that the person is
highly driven by their values and principles. Their actions are guided by a strong sense of what is
right, and they are likely to influence others with their moral beliefs (Schwartz, 1992).

The score 8 on the Commitment Factor is indicative of being dedicated to particular activity or cause.
This is interpreted as a high score. A score of 8 indicates a high level of dedication to causes or
activities. This commitment is often linked to perseverance, reliability, and the ability to follow
through on long-term objectives (Allen & Meyer, 1990).

The score 7 on the Altruistic Behaviour Factor is indicative of performing selfless acts of helping
others without expecting anything in return. This is interpreted as a high score. A score of 7 reflects a
tendency towards altruism, where the individual engages in selfless acts of helping others without
expecting anything in return. This is an indication of strong social responsibility and empathy (Batson,
1991).

The test-taker had an overall score 134 indicates a high score. A high overall score on the Emotional
Intelligence (EI) Scale reflects a well-developed ability to manage emotions and navigate social
interactions effectively. Individuals scoring high on EI tend to exhibit strong self-awareness, meaning
they have a deep understanding of their own emotions, thoughts, and triggers. This awareness helps
them make informed decisions and regulate their emotions effectively (Goleman, 1995). Moreover,
they possess strong empathy, allowing them to understand and connect with the emotions of others.
This quality fosters better communication and interpersonal relationships, enabling them to navigate
social dynamics smoothly (Salovey & Mayer, 1990).

Another key indicator of high emotional intelligence is strong internal motivation. These individuals
are driven by personal goals rather than external rewards and demonstrate perseverance even in the
face of obstacles (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Coupled with emotional stability, they maintain calmness and
balance in stressful situations, showing resilience in overcoming adversity (Bar-On, 1997). Their high
level of emotional control benefits both their own well-being and the stability of their relationships.
Additionally, individuals with high EI excel in managing relationships. They handle conflicts maturely
and are often seen as supportive and trustworthy, making them effective leaders and team members
(Goleman, 1998).

Integrity and ethical behavior are also prominent traits in individuals with high EI. They are honest,
morally grounded, and consistent in their actions, fostering trust among their peers (Covey, 1990).
Furthermore, they are committed to self-development, constantly seeking opportunities for growth
and improvement, which helps them adapt to changing environments and challenges (Maslow,
1954). Their actions are often driven by strong moral values, allowing them to maintain a clear sense
of purpose and guide others with their principles (Schwartz, 1992). Commitment to goals and
responsibilities is another strength, as these individuals tend to show loyalty and persistence in
pursuing long-term objectives (Allen & Meyer, 1990).

Lastly, individuals with high emotional intelligence demonstrate altruistic behavior. They are inclined
toward helping others selflessly, contributing to the well-being of their communities and
organizations (Batson, 1991). In summary, a high overall EI score suggests that the individual is adept
at managing their emotions, understanding others, staying motivated, maintaining strong ethics, and
fostering healthy relationships. These qualities are associated with better leadership, higher life
satisfaction, and more meaningful personal and professional interactions (Goleman, 1998).

Conclusion

The test taker scored 17 on the Self-Awareness Factor, 21 on Empathy Factor, 25 on Self-Motivation
Factor, 15 on Emotional Stability Factor, 17 on Managing Relations Factor, 11 on Integrity Factor, 6 on
Self-Development Factor, 7 on Value Orientation Factor, 8 on Commitment Factor and 7 on Altruistic
Behaviour Factor. The test-taker’s total scores are 134.

References

“Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT), by J. D. Mayer, P. Salovey, and D. R.

Caruso, 2002, Toronto, Ontario: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.)

Ackerman, P. L., & Kanfer, R. (2009). Test length and cognitive fatigue: An empirical examination of
effects on performance and test-taker reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied, 15(2),
163–181. [Link]

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and
normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1-18.
Anukool Hyde, Sanjyot Pethe, Upinder Dhar (2011); Manual for Emotional Intelligence [Link]
Psychological Corporation.

Atre, S. (n.d.). A brief history of emotional intelligence |. Socialigence. Retrieved 2024, from
[Link]

Bar-On, R. (1997). BarOn emotional quotient inventory (Vol. 40). Multi-health systems.

Bar-On, R. (1997). Emotional intelligence. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 29,
164-175. [Link]

Bar-On, R. (1997). The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Technical manual. Multi-Health Systems.

Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

BPsySc, H. C. (2024, July 26). The theories of emotional intelligence explained.

[Link]. [Link]

Brackett, M. (n.d.). Emotional intelligence. Noba. [Link]

intelligence

Cabello, R., Sorrel, M. A., Fernández-Pinto, I., Extremera, N., & Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2016). Age and
gender differences in ability emotional intelligence in adults: A cross-sectional study. Developmental
psychology, 52(9), 1486-1492. [Link]

Ciarrochi, J., Chan, A. Y. C., & Bajgar, J. (2001). Measuring emotional intelligence in adolescents.
Personality and Individual Differences, 31(7), 1105-1119. [Link]
8869(00)00207-5

Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E. (2018). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests
and measurement (Ninth edition). McGraw-Hill.

Covey, S. R. (1990). The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change.
Free Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
Springer Science & Business Media.

Dhani, P., & Sharma, T. (2016a). EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE; HISTORY, MODELS AND MEASURES.
International Journal of Science Technology And Management, 5(7), 190–191.
[Link]
LS_AND_MEASURES

Drigas, A. S., & Papoutsi, C. (2018). A New Layered Model on Emotional Intelligence. Behavioral
Sciences, 8(5). [Link]

Emotional intelligence: mixed model. (n.d.). [Link].

[Link]

Garett, H. S. (1981). Statistics in Psychology and Education. NewYork: David McKay Co.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. Bantam Books.

Goleman, D. (1998). Working with Emotional Intelligence. Bantam Books.

Goleman, D., Jr. (1998). EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE.
[Link]

Harms, P., & Credé, M. (2010). Emotional Intelligence and Transformational and Transactional
Leadership: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17(1), 5–17.
[Link]

Hcsuper. (2022, November 29). Daniel Goleman's Emotional Intelligence Theory: Explanation and
Examples | Resilient Educator. Resilient Educator. [Link]
resources/daniel-golemans-emotional-intelligence-theory-explained/

Hyde, A. M., Pethe, S., & Dhar, U. (2002). Psychological Test: Manual for Emotional Intelligence Scale.
ResearchGate.
[Link]
ntelligence_Scale

Jardine, B. B., Vannier, S., & Voyer, D. (2022). Emotional intelligence and romantic relationship
satisfaction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Personality and individual differences, 196,
111713. [Link]

Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2004). Managing emotions during team problem solving: emotional
intelligence and conflict resolution. Human Performance, 17(2), 195–218.
[Link]

Joseph, S. (2015). Positive psychology in practice: Promoting Human Flourishing in Work, Health,
Education, and Everyday Life. John Wiley & Sons.

Kanesan, P., & Fauzan, N. (1997). MODELS OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE: a REVIEW. In Vol. 16. No.7
(pp. 1–9) [Journal-article]. [Link]

Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2013). Psychological testing: Principles, Applications, and Issues.
Wadsworth, Cengage Learning

MacCann, C., Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2003). PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE: A REVIEW OF SELF‐REPORT AND PERFORMANCE ‐BASED TESTING. The
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(3), 247–274. [Link]

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. Harper & Row.

Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Science and Myth. MIT
Press.

Mattingly, V., & Kraiger, K. (2019). Can emotional intelligence be trained? A Meta-Analytical
Investigation. Human Resource Management Review, 29(2), 140-155.
[Link]

Models of emotional intelligence. (2016, May 7). [Link]

intelligence

Neubauer, A. C., & Freudenthaler, H. H. (2005). Models of emotional intelligence. In Emotional

intelligence: An international handbook (pp. 40–47). [Link]
Neubauer-2/publication/232490406_Models_of_Emotional_Intelligence/links/
5a5f0c9daca272d4a3e0be9c/[Link]
Panguluri , P., & Mohan, N. D. (2018). International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews, 5(4).
[Link]

Peltier, B. (2011). The Psychology of Executive Coaching. In Routledge eBooks.

[Link]

Petrides, K. (2010). Trait Emotional intelligence Theory. Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
3(2), 136–139. [Link]

Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: psychometric investigation with
reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15(6), 425–448.
[Link]

Rani, M. U., & Prakash, S. (2015). I-Manager’s Journal on Educational Psychology, 9(NO.1).
[Link]

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9(3),
185-211.

Sánchez-Álvarez, N., Extremera, N., & Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2015). The Relation between emotional
intelligence and subjective well-being: A meta-analytic investigation. The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 11(3), 276–285. [Link]

Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L.
(1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and
Individual Differences, 25(2), 167-177. [Link]

Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L.
(1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and
Individual Differences, 25(2), 167–177. [Link]

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and
empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65.
Test 4 - Non-Verbal Test of Intelligence (N.V.T.I.)

Group 4

MA I Psychology

Submitted for - Practicals Introduction

Submitted to - Professor Shruti Gala

Test 4 - Non-Verbal Test of Intelligence (N.V.T.I.)

Aim / Objective

To understand and demonstrate the administration, scoring, and interpretation of the Non-
Verbal Test of Intelligence.

Introduction

Definitions

Intelligence is defined as a multifaceted capacity that manifests itself in different ways across the
lifespan. The abilities associated with Intelligence are to acquire and apply knowledge, reason
logically, plan effectively, make sound judgments, solve problems, pay attention, cope with, adjust to
and make most of the situation.

Robert Sternberg (1997) defined intelligence as “the mental abilities necessary for adaptation to, as
well as shaping and selection of, any environmental context.” (Sternberg,1997)

David Wechsler, 1958 defined intelligence as “the aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act
purposefully, to think rationally and to deal effectively with his environment.” (Wechsler,1958)

Theories

Galton’s view on Intelligence and Testing

Although the idea of intelligence testing is centuries old, the development of the tools of
measurement is a relatively new addition, tracing back to 1883 with Francis Galton. The contribution
of Sir Francis Galton to the scientific study of mental ability and particularly, intelligence is influenced
by his interest in the differences in psychological traits for individuals and groups (Jensen, 2002). The
sole way for Galton to study intelligence was by examining the genetic inheritance of ability for
eminent individuals, citing it as ‘natural ability’. According to him, this inherited ability could be
converted into a ‘general mental ability’ that manifests itself in various areas of intellectual
achievement. In order to test heritability, Galton also introduced the idea of twin studies for
understanding the extent to which genetic factors are shared for monozygotic and dizygotic twins.
The latter in this case, seemed to show a greater variance in general ability (Galton, 1883).

In order to devise an empirical method of measuring the hypothesized general abilities, Galton
proposed the idea of measuring an individual’s physical attributes. For the same reason, his studies
were often based on noting the performance of tasks involving sensorimotor capacities, such as
measuring the reaction time to a stimulus, strength of grip, sensory discrimination etc. Although such
techniques lacked the precision, reliability and diversity for it to be claimed scientific, the data
collected on simple sensory and reaction time tests were found to be statistically significant when
tested with methods developed later (Johnson et al., 1985; as cited in Jensen, 2002). Consequently,
the data influenced Galton’s other contributions in inventing percentile scores, regression, the idea
of scaling variables and eventually, his theory of eugenics. Through his field observations in different
populations (Africa) and sexes, he also found group differences in the inheritance of the general
ability, though his insights are highly scrutinized today (Lynn, 1991; as cited in Jensen, 2002).

Spearman’s Two-factor theory of Intelligence

As a successor to Galton’s investigation of general ability, Charles Spearman introduced the construct
of ‘general intelligence’ or the ‘g factor’ in 1904. Spearman differentiated between his and Galton’s
understanding of intelligence by focusing on the concept of a single underlying factor termed as
‘general intelligence’ that was derived from addition of scores on various cognitive tasks and abilities
that are interrelated, shifting from merely looking at sensory abilities. This led to the development of
a composite measure that is based on finding correlations between measures of different abilities
through a method known as factor analysis. The idea of the ‘g’ factor was supplemented with an ‘s’
factor in 1927, that reflected the presence of special abilities required for special tasks and tests. In
totality, both the factors together led to the formation of his Two-factor theory, which has been
excessively helpful in distinguishing achievement on a battery of cognitive tests generally and special
tests for certain job roles (Jensen, 2002).

Louis Leon Thurstone’s Theory of Primary Mental Abilities

The use of a factor analytic method to understand individual differences in mental abilities
accelerated with Louis Thurstone’s theory of primary mental abilities. This theory essentially
challenges the idea of a general ability, instead proposing that a certain number of independent
factors can be derived that reflect intelligence. The evidence for this was based on a test experiment
with 56 tests measuring abstraction, verbal, numerical, spatial and koivisual abilities etc. A factorial
analysis was conducted by Thurstone in which he observed that scores on a cognitive test clustered
together to form groups that indicated different factors underlying objective performance. These
factors were sought to be uncorrelated, unlike what Spearman proposed earlier. Initially in 1937,
thirteen factors had been drawn from the study which were further reduced to seven primary mental
abilities by 1938, namely- Verbal Comprehension that measured the ability to process verbal
information, Word Fluency that measured the ability to group words and present them, Numerical
Ability that represented performance on mathematical calculations, Spatial Visualization for
understanding forms and spatial orientation, Memory for recall, Perceptual speed for identifying
similarities and differences between objects and Inductive reasoning for making general conclusions
(Thurstone, 1937).Thurstone’s interest in finding different abilities that govern intelligence were
instrumental in developing later theories such as that of the Cattell-Horn-Carroll Model. Later, two
additional factors namely problem solving ability and deductive reasoning were also added to his
model.

Theory of Multiple Intelligences by Howard Gardner

Howard Gardner’s theory of Multiple Intelligences is effective at building upon this framework,
adding the scope for flexibility to it. The theory was first proposed in his book, Frames of Mind: The
theory of Multiple Intelligences where he mentioned eight types of intelligences involved in
performing different tasks (Gardner, 1983). These eight intelligences were Linguistic intelligence,
Logical-mathematical intelligence, Spatial intelligence, Musical intelligence, Bodily-kinesthetic
intelligence, Interpersonal Intelligence and Intrapersonal intelligence. The eighth type was known as
Naturalistic Intelligence and was later added to his theory to get a broader understanding of
intelligence (Gardner,1999).

With reference to the theory, Linguistic Intelligence describes an ability to analyze information and
create products involving oral or written language, such as speeches, books and memos. Logical-
mathematical intelligence refers to an ability to develop equations and proofs, make calculations and
solve abstract problems. Spatial intelligence represents an ability to recognize and manipulate large-
scale and fine-grained spatial images whereas musical intelligence focuses on producing,
remembering, and making meaning of different patterns of sound. Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence,
often demonstrated by people who use their body for expression, refers to an ability to use one’s
own body to create products or solve problems. Lastly, Interpersonal intelligence was devised as an
ability to recognize and understand other people’s moods, desires, motivations, and intentions while
Intrapersonal intelligence focuses on recognizing and understanding one’s own moods, desires,
motivations, and intentions. The component of Naturalistic intelligence was added to include the
ability to identify and differentiate between natural elements found such as plants, animals, and
weather formations (Davis et al., 2017).

In comparison to earlier theories, the Theory of Multiple Intelligences is also pluralistic, wherein the
performance on one type of intelligence is independent of the other. Moreover, intelligence is
understood as a product of the interaction between heritable components and environmental
influences. The idea of different intelligences was conceived by examining individuals who have
advanced in different domains and cultural contexts that led to an increasing attention to qualitative
forms of assessments. Since the development of this theory, multiple other types of intelligences
have been identified such as humor intelligence, moral intelligence etc (Boss, 2005; Goleman, 1995;
as cited in Davis et al., 2017). Gardner (2006b; as cited in Davis et al., 2017) himself added existential
intelligence to his theory to account for an ability to consider abstract questions on the meaning of
life and death. In the current context, the theory of Multiple Intelligences is very fruitful in
developing educational pedagogy, though continuing to be criticized due to its perceived lack of
empirical evidence and ambiguous criteria for identifying someone with diverse types of
intelligences (Davis et al., 2017).
Sternberg Triarchic Theory

Robert Sternberg (1985) proposed the Triarchic theory of intelligence in response to perceived
limitations in Gardner's model. Intelligence, according to Sternberg, is the ability to achieve success
based on personal standards and socio-cultural context. stated there are three kinds of intelligence-
analytical, creative and practical intelligence (Sternberg 1988, 1997a). Analytical intelligence refers to
the ability to break down problems into smaller elements for analysis and better problem solving.
People who have high analytical intelligence are academic achievers and are categorized as book
smarts. Creative intelligence is the ability to come up with novel ways of solving a problem. It shows
the divergent thinking ability of an individual. Practical intelligence refers to the ability to use a
particular information to manipulate a situation to one's advantage. People who have high practical
intelligence are categorized as street smarts. Practical intelligence helps an individual to get along in
life and become [Link] example while designing an experiment, analytical intelligence will be
used to do an analysis on the data, creative intelligence will be used to design the experiment and
practical intelligence will be used get participants and funding for the experiment (Sternberg 2015).

Guilford's Structure of Intellect Model (SOI) -

Psychologist J. P. Guilford made a significant contribution by pioneering the study of creativity in

psychology. He introduced his perspective and stated his intention of using a factor analytic
technique to isolate and distinguish between distinct thinking factors, i.e., to separate thinking skills
such as creativity from thinking abilities that were measured by IQ (Barlow, 2000). According to
Guilford (1967), “Every mental task includes three things: a content, an operation and a
product.”(Guilford, 1967).

There are five kinds of content: visual, auditory, symbolic, semantic and behavioral. The broad
categories of information that the human intellect processes are referred to as content. Stated
differently, it refers to distinct types of information because it was observed that certain individuals
appeared to be more receptive to and capable of processing distinct types of information. Visual
information is encountered directly by sense of sight and in visual form. This type of information can
only be seen. For example - shapes, colors. Auditory information is processed by the sense of hearing
and includes information in an auditory form. This type of information can only be heard. For
example - language, music, sound, speech etc. Symbolic includes symbols or signals which convey
information indirectly. These can be seen as codes which represent some concrete or abstract
concept. They convey meaning. For eg. - the mathematical symbol of ÷ for the concept of division.
Semantic pertains to the meaning and concepts conveyed by words. In simple words, it refers to
those words which when presented, act as a stimuli and trigger a mental image. For eg. - words like
college, door trigger a mental image when they are heard or read. Behavioural refers to the mental
states and behavior of individuals which can be collected by observing the facial expressions, voice of
the individuals. (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2000) (Barlow, 2000).

The operations dimension pertains to the intellectual processes of the brain, describing how the
brain handles and processes different types of information (Barlow, 2000). There are five kinds of
operation: cognition, memory, divergent production, convergent production, and evaluation
(Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2000). Cognition is defined as “awareness, immediate discovery or
rediscovery, or recognition of information in various forms; comprehension or understanding”
(Guilford, 1967). For example - cognition of visual units refers to one’s ability to identify, understand
and label images. Memory operation is defined as “retention or storage, with some degree of
availability, of information in the same form in which it was committed to storage and in connection
with the same cues with which it was learned” (Guilford, 1967).

Divergent Production is defined as “generation of information from given information, where the
emphasis is upon variety and quantity of output from the same source; likely to involve transfer”
(Guilford, 1967). It pertains to thinking in different directions, seeking different approaches to solve
problems. For example, establishing a new theory in order to find a reason for a phenomenon.
Convergent Production is the competency to derive answers, conclusions on the basis of a set of
rules or a set of information. It results in useful solutions to the problems which are universally
accepted. The problems where convergent production is employed are generally very structured
(Guilford, 1967). Evaluation is defined as “a process of comparing a product of information with
known information according to logical criteria, reaching a decision concerning criterion satisfaction”
(Guilford, 1967). It refers to the ability to evaluate information to make judgements, derive
conclusions and make decisions.

Products relate to the kind of information we process from the content types (Barlow, 2000). It is
included because of the need for taking into account the parallels that appeared across both the
content and the operation categories (Guilford, 1967). In simple words, it is a combination of types of
content and operation types. There are six kinds of product: units, classes, relations, systems,
transformations, and implications. (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2000). Units can be discrete pieces of
information. They can be things, segregated wholes, figures on grounds, or “chunks” (G. A. Miller,
1956). Units are objects or things to which words are assigned (Guilford, 1967). Classes refer to a
group of objects with one or more common properties. It is the ability to categorize and group units
based on common properties (Barlow, 2000). Relations refer to a kind of link between two units
(Guilford, 1967). It includes the competence to discover relations between pairs of units (Barlow,
2000). Systems are made up of multiple relations which are interdependent and interacting. They are
complexes, patterns, or organizations of interdependent or interacting parts (Guilford, 1967) which
are composed of units, relations, classes into a large meaningful structure. Transformations is the
process of modifying, changing, restructuring existing information into new information. So, it is the
ability to understand changes in information and also to suggest changes for development (Barlow,
2000). Implications refers to something which is expected or predicted (Guilford, 1967).

Raymond Cattell’s Theory of Intelligence

Raymond Cattell was a British American Psychologist. He is known for his extensive psychometric
research in the domains of intelligence and personality. His theory of intelligence is based on the g
factor which was given by Charles Spearman. Cattell’s theory suggests that different abilities interact
and work together to form the overall intelligence of an individual. The theory proposed a theory of
intelligence which postulated the existence of two major types of intelligence or cognitive abilities -
crystallized intelligence and fluid intelligence (Cohen, 2022).
Each type of the above-mentioned intelligence consists of abilities in it. Crystallised intelligence (Gc)
comprises abilities such as learnt knowledge and skills that are reliant on exposure to a specific
culture and both formal and informal education. (Cohen, 2022). So these abilities are dependent on
environmental factors. It includes knowledge which comes from past experiences, one’s educational
attainment, prior learning etc. For eg. - memorizing a poem.

While the abilities of fluid intelligence (Gf) are relatively free from learning and experiences and
environmental factors (Psychology Standard Twelve, 2020, p.13). It means they involve the ability to
think in an abstract manner and reason. They are nonverbal, relatively culture-free, and independent
of specific instruction (such as memory for digits) (Cohen, 2022). Fluid Intelligence is a fallible
indicator of reasoning of several kinds, abstracting, and problem solving. Therefore, reasoning is
involved when performing tasks with a high loading on gf and cultural knowledge is involved to a
lesser extent. (Beauducel & Kersting, 2002). For eg. - solving a puzzle.

Carroll - Horn - Cattell Theory

This theory is based on the culmination work of several theorists, Raymond Cattell, John Horn, and
John Carroll (Flanagan & Dixon, 2013; McGrew, 2009; Schneider & McGrew, 2012 as cited in Ciccarelli
& White, 2020, p. 280). Raymond Cattell propagated the idea that intelligence was composed of
crystallized intelligence which is acquired knowledge and skills and not fluid intelligence, or problem-
solving and adaptability in unfamiliar situations. John Horn (another contributor to this theory)
expanded on Cattell’s work by adding other abilities based on visual and auditory processing,
memory, speed of processing, reaction time, quantitative skills and reading-writing skills (Flanagan &
Dixon, 2013 as cited in Ciccarelli & White, 2020, p. 280).

Based on factor analysis which was done by John Carroll on more than 460 studies, he developed a
three-tier hierarchical model of cognitive abilities thereby suggesting a new theory, which was in line
with the Cattell - Horn crystallized and fluid intelligence models. This theory which was suggested
was called the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Theory of Intelligence (McGrew, 2009 as cited in Ciccarelli &
White, 2020, p. 280). It is also a hierarchical model which means that all of the abilities listed in a
stratum are subsumed by or incorporated in the strata above. The McGrew-Flanagan CHC model
currently identifies ten "broad-stratum" abilities and more than seventy "narrow-stratum" abilities,
with each broad ability encompassing two or more narrow abilities. The ten broad-stratum abilities
are as follows: fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence, quantitative knowledge, reading/ writing
ability, short-term memory, visual processing, auditory processing, long-term storage and retrieval,
processing speed, and decision/reaction time or speed. This current model has no provision for the
general intellectual ability factor (g) (Cohen, 2022, p.283).

Pass theory - Planning, Attention, Simultaneous and Successive processing

The PASS theory - Planning , Attention, simultaneous and successive processing of intelligence
defines intelligence on the basis of basic neurocognitive abilities like Planning, Attention,
Simultaneous and Successive of basic psychological processes.
Planning refers to the neurocognitive ability used when a person decides how to complete a task
using strategy, self monitoring and self correction especially in novel situations .(Goldberg 2009).
Planning refers to novel ways of solving a problem by analyzing ways of solving the problem that
worked and did not work in the [Link] CAS2 ,Planned code subtests are brief subtests on planning
and the testaker is provided with novel problems to solve. The test taker who creates an effective
strategy gets a high score. Observation of test taker's behavior also provides an insight into planning
ability .Attention refers to the ability of selectively focusing on a specific stimulus while inhibiting
response to other stimuli (Luria 1973a, p.271) Attention is essential for other neurocognitive
processes to occur. Higher attention processes include selective attention, shifting attention based on
salience and resistance to distraction. Expressive Attention subtest in CAS2 is an example of subtest
measuring attention . Behaviors like attending or resisting distraction are also taken into
[Link] processing is the ability of integrating separate stimuli into a single
whole. It is used to combine separate elements into one whole. It involves linguistic and visual spatial
dimensions and involves verbal as well as non verbal content. Linguistic dimension involves
integrating words into ideas. The spatial stimuli involves perception of stimuli as a whole. The Verbal
Spatial Relations Subtest is an example of a subtest measuring simultaneous processing. Behaviors in
visuo spatial tasks like drawing three dimensional figures are good at simultaneous processing.
Successive processing refers to the ability used to recall information in order and understanding a
statement based on syntax of the language as well as phonological analysis (Luria 1982 , Lezak 1995).
Successive processing is essential for tasks that require sequential order. Word Recall, Digit span
tasks are subtests that measure successive processing.

Hence PASS theory provides a description of what kind of thinking should subtests evoke. Planning
shows how well a person creates strategies and completes the task. Attention shows how well a
person can focus on the required task and resist distraction. Simultaneous processing shows how
well a person can understand relationships among things. Successive processing shows how well a
person can deal with sequential order of the task. PASS approach, unlike traditional verbal non verbal
categorization, does not correspond to early associations of simultaneous processing with non verbal
and successive processing with verbal tasks. As per this approach ,simultaneous processing involves
increased long range connection between hemispheres, transcending the typical division, while
successive processing is characterized by similar coherence patterns with each hemisphere.

History

Sir Francis Galton and Paul Broca were two of the earliest scientists to consider evaluating intellect.
In mid-1880, Sir Francis Galton administered a battery of tests measuring variables such as head size,
reaction time, visual accuracy, breathing capacity etc. He created a set of "anthropometric"
measurements because he believed that he could measure the size of the human skull and thereby
identify IQ. Hence, he assumed that the larger the head of an individual, the smarter the person. His
test, however, did not show itself to be particularly helpful in assessing intelligence (C, 2002).
Raymond Cattell, a lab assistant at Sir Francis Galton's, started similar labs in the United States in the
early 1890s. During this period, Cattell coined the term ‘mental test’ for the first time. In the 1890s,
he modified Galton's examinations for use in studies involving American university students. He
agreed that sensory activities are the most effective way to assess IQ. He also stressed the need for
test administration to be standardized so that everyone receives the same score and that results may
be compared periodically as well as across individuals. (Psychology Standard Twelve, 2020, p.14).

At the beginning of the 20th century, the Paris school authorities were very interested in finding out
why some students kept failing exams even though there were no environmental or medical factors
that could explain why they were failing (Psychology Standard Twelve, 2020, p.14). The psychologist
Alfred Binet and the psychiatrist Theodore Simon created a "measuring scale of intelligence" in 1905
to look into the causes (Binet & Simon, 1905). This was named as Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale and
hence, Alfred Binet is regarded as the ‘Father of Intelligence Tests.’ The scale consisted of 30 brief
cognitive tests which were arranged in ascending order of difficulty level. The scale has numerous
components, including digit span, object naming, logical reasoning, identifying rhyming phrases, and
reasoning. In 1908, Binet and Simon fundamentally revised their scale by dividing the test into age
groups. According to the prevailing psychometric views, even though this revision included both
verbal and non-verbal tests it exaggerated verbal skills such as vocabulary and repetition (C, 2002).

The Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale was updated in 1916 by Lewis Terman from Stanford University. In
his revision, he added, modified and adapted a few items, established new age norms and extended
the upper limit of the scale into adulthood. Furthermore, he changed the desired composite score
from mental age to intelligence quotient (IQ) (C, 2002). This test came to be known as the Stanford-
Binet Intelligence Test. After that, revisions were made in 1937, 1960, 1972, 1986, and 2004
(Psychology Standard Twelve, 2020, p.14).

However, nonverbal intelligence tests were seen as essential by clinicians to assess clients who did
not speak English, those who had hearing problems, etc. As a result, intelligence performance tests
were created (C, 2002). In 1911, a collection of practical tests was introduced by psychologist Grace
Fernald and psychiatrist William Healy, who claimed that the tests were designed “to ascertain the
mental ability quite apart from the individual's experience in formal training in our language, or
indeed in any language'' (1911, p. 4).

In 1914, the First World War commenced. In 1917, Robert Yerks assembled a panel of testing
professionals with the goal of creating a test to screen applicants for military duty recruiting and
identify those qualified for specific leadership positions (C, 2002). As a result, the Army Alpha test
and Army Beta intelligence test were created as group assessments. The Army Alpha exam was a
written exam intended to evaluate literate English speakers, whereas the Army Beta test was a
nonverbal performance exam created for the minority non-English speaking population. Each of the
tests was made up of several smaller tests (C, 2002).
In contrast to Alfred Binet, David Wechsler thought that intelligence involved distinct mental
capacities. Wechsler promoted replacing the ratio IQ with the deviation score as an alternative. This
technique determined IQ by taking the mean and standard deviation at each age level and utilizing
them to turn the sum of subtest scores into a standard score (C, 2002). Based on this opinion, he
established the Wechsler Bellevue Intelligence Scale. This scale was revised in 1955 and was
renamed the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) (Psychology Standard Twelve, 2020, p.14). It
was developed to assess adult and older adolescents' IQ. The most recent version is WAIS-IV. It offers
scores in four domains of intelligence: verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, working
memory, and processing speed. It consists of ten subtests (Cherry, 2023). Additionally, he created the
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC), a test used to assess children's intelligence
(Psychology Standard Twelve, 2020, p. 14).

Difference between Verbal, Non-Verbal and Performance Tests

Verbal test

A Verbal test makes use of language for the participants to solve a test. Participants can

give responses either by writing or orally saying the responses. The instructions are usually printed or
given in a written format which are read by the examinee and after that the test taker proceeds with
solving the test. For example- Jalota Group General Intelligence Test and Mehta Group Test of
Intelligence. Because the test is solved on paper with the help of a pencil it is also called the paper
pencil test of intelligence (Singh, 2017). It can be administered on literate people. Verbal tests uses
written passages with possible responses as true, false or cannot say. It is also used to determine the
skill level when dealing with language..This type of test involves manipulation of the visual
information and may vary in the amount of motor skills and other

skills required to complete the test (Kuschner, E. S., 1970).

Non-verbal test

A Non-verbal test of intelligence makes use of images or graphics as test items. It does

not make use of language like a verbal test of intelligence. Although the test instructions do

make use of a language, the test items do not use language per se (Singh,2017). It helps in

assessing individuals with issues such as dyslexia, aphasia, speech problem, language

disabilities, learning disabilities , etc. (Psychology Wiki, Fandom, Inc., 2024, psychology). It is culture
free and largely motor free and requires just a nod of head, a point towards the answer or a
meaningful gesture to respond. TONI 4 is a test that can be used for people who cannot understand
or write English language because of its pantomime and oral format due to some disabilities, trauma,
disease or cultural reasons. Based on the research the test is free from biases based on gender, race,
ethnicity and other variables (Johnsen Susan.K).

Performance test
Performance test requires the test taker to perform the test by managing various materials

and objects. It does not allow the test taker to make use of written language or orally answering or
responding to the questions (Testbook, 2021). For example- load test, endurance test, stress test,
peak test, spike test (Palamarchuk 2024). Sometimes instructions are given orally or by making the
use of gestures and or pantomime [a form of drama]. It requires the test taker or examinee to do
puzzles, or align pictures in a particular order, or place pictures in the board correctly. One important
thing to note, the performance tests are mostly administered on the examinee or the test taker
individually so that the examiner can count the number of errors made by the examinee. In any
performance test, the important thing that is taken into consideration is test takers or examinee’s
ability to perform the test rather than answering the questions (Singh, 2017). Performance tests
cannot be biased in terms of language, culture, socioeconomic status, race,educational background
because it doesn't take these factors into account that may impact one’s behavior (Mote, 2010).

Other Intelligence Tests

Stanford Binet Intelligence scales

The Stanford Binet Intelligence Test was first developed in 1905 by Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon.
Lewis Terman’s remarkable work at Stanford University was the one which led to the emergence of
the Stanford Binet Intelligence scale. The test was revised from time to time in 1926, 1972, 1986.
However,The current version (2003) i.e. the fifth edition is administered on individuals in the age
group of as young as 2 to as old as 85. A number of composite scores are obtained from the test,
including a Full Scale IQ that is obtained by administering ten subtests. It measures five elements:
Fluid reasoning, Knowledge, Quantitative Reasoning, Visual-Spatial Processing Speed and Working
Memory. There is a balance between both the verbal and non-verbal tests (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018).
The time taken to administer the test is around 45-90 minutes (Quinn, 2024). Norming sample
consisted of 4,800 subjects of age group 2-85 years. The sample used was representative of 2000
year US census data. This test has adaptive testing which means that test is tailored according to the
individual. Items of middle range difficulty are given. If individual gets it correct then the next item is
of great difficulty but if it is incorrect, then item of lower difficulty is given (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018).
This test is useful in identifying giftedness, guiding education and helping diagnose learning disability.
The Stanford Binet intelligence test is strongly correlated to Woodcock Johnson Test as both of them
measure cognitive abilities especially Fluid Reasoning and Processing Speed (Quinn, 2024).

Wechsler’s Intelligence Scales

The Wechsler intelligence test, developed by David Wechsler is an individually administered test that
measures the intellectual abilities of children from preschool to adulthood. The first test , the
Wechsler Bellevue 1 (WB1)that was introduced in 1939, made use of point scale with six verbal and
five performance subtests, arranged by increasing difficulty (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018).

There are 3 types of Wechsler scales, the first being Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) created
by David Wechsler assesses intelligence through Verbal and Performance scales, that yields Verbal
IQ, Performance IQ and Full Scale IQ [Link] WAIS-R revision in 1981, required alternating verbal
and performance tests, whereas the 1997 third edition expanded norms for ages 74-89 and
introduced user-friendly materials (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018).

WAIS-IV, the current version of WAIS includes 10 core subtests and 5 supplemental subtests. A core
subtest yields a composite score whereas a supplemental subtest is used for additional clinical
information or increasing the total number of sampled processes or abilities. There are 10 core
subtests (Block Design, Similarities, Digit Span, Matrix Reasoning, Vocabulary, Arithmetic, Symbol
search, Visual puzzles, Information, Coding) and 5 supplemental subtests (Letter number sequencing,
Figure weights, Comprehension, Cancellation, Picture completion) in WAIS-IV. The time taken to
administer is from 60-90 minutes and is useful to psychologists, researchers and educators who wish
to measure intelligence and cognitive abilities in both adults and older adolescents (Leo, 2023). The
standardization sample of WAIS-IV contained 2,200 adults who were from the age group of 16 to 90
years,11 months. The sample was representative of 2005 US Census data with keeping in mind the
age, sex, race/ethnicity, educational level and geographic region. It is used to measure 4 factors:
Verbal comprehension, Working memory, Perceptual reasoning, Processing speed (Cohen &
Swerdlik, 2018).

Due to the popularity of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence scale, The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children (WISC) was first published in 1949, and is currently running its fifth edition published in
2014 (Cohen & Swerdlik, 1980). It measures four cognitive areas such as Verbal Comprehension,
Perceptual Reasoning, Working Memory and Processing Speed (Gould & Tarbox, 2011). It was revised
in 1974 which came to be known as WISC-R. The time taken to administer is about 65-80 minutes for
10 subtests. Full scale IQ is generated which tells us the child’s general intellectual ability. It is an
individually administered test which measures the intellectual abilities of children between the age
of 6 and 16 years 11 months (Gould & Tarbox, 2011).

Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI) was developed by David Wechsler in
1967 (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018). It was an adaptation of Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children
(WISC). Since the first release, there have been three revisions (WPPSI-R 1989; WPPSI-III 2002;
WPPSI-IV 2012). It aims to measure the intelligence of children of age group 2 years, 6 months to 7
years, 7 months. Two age- band subtest batteries for ages 2:6-3:11 and 4:0-7:7 are provided by
WPPSI-IV. The 2:6-3:11 battery consists of 7 subtests whereas 4:0-7:7 consists of a total of 15
subtests (Seth & Susie, 2018). Between December 2010 and May 2012, 1700 children that make up
the standardized sample were gathered. The sample was carefully stratified by age, sex,
race/ethnicity, and parental educational level by using data from the 2010 US Census data (Park &
Demakis, 2020).

Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test

The developers of Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test were Alan Kaufman and Nadeen Kaufman which
was originally published in 1990 and then was again introduced as Kaufman Brief Intelligence -
second edition (KBIT II). It is a brief intelligence test that aims to measure an individual's verbal and
non-verbal intelligence (Waddell, 2023). It is administered to individuals of the age group 4-90 years
of age. There are 3 subtests, they are Verbal Knowledge, Matrices and Riddles. In the Verbal
Knowledge subtest, a word or question is asked by the examiner to which participant is supposed to
respond by pointing the finger towards the picture that best answers the question. In Matrices
subtest, series of pictures/patterns are shown which participant has to analyze and respond by
pointing the answer that corresponds with the picture/pattern and in the Riddles subtest, a riddle is
given by the examiner verbally to which participant answer by pointing the finger towards the
picture or word that best answers the riddle. It takes 15-30 minutes for administration (Carlozzi,
2011).

Raven's Progressive Matrices

Raven's Progressive Matrices is a nonverbal test of intelligence. A matrix of abstract patterns or

images with one image or pattern missing are presented to the test taker . The test taker is then
asked to select the image or pattern that completes the matrix. The difficulty level progresses as we
move further in the test. This test measures intelligence on the basis of their abstract reasoning skills
known as fluid intelligence (Ciccarelli, 2006). Raven's matrices measure fluid intelligence which is a
key cognitive ability and helps us to adapt to new situations. It follows the principle of information
processing which refers to the ability to intake information, transformation of information and
application of information to solve problems. This test is a non verbal culture fair test which
measures pattern recognition and visual spatial abilities and has high criterion validity, construct
validity and high levels of internal consistency.

Recent Research

A study examined the relationship between age, cognitive flexibility, and non-verbal intelligence in
older adults. It identified age-related decline in cognitive flexibility as a significant factor influencing
non-verbal intelligence performance. A sample of 900 participants aged 60-85 was tested using
Raven’s Progressive Matrices and tasks measuring cognitive flexibility. The results showed that older
adults with better cognitive flexibility performed significantly higher on non-verbal intelligence tasks.
While age negatively impacted cognitive flexibility, it did not directly influence non-verbal
intelligence scores as much as flexibility did. Cognitive flexibility emerged as the key predictor of non-
verbal intelligence performance in older adults (Smith et al., 2020).

A study explored the relationship between multilingualism and non-verbal intelligence in children. It
assessed how speaking multiple languages impacts cognitive functioning, particularly in non-verbal
reasoning tasks. A sample of 500 children, aged 8-12, from multilingual and monolingual
backgrounds, was tested using the Culture Fair Intelligence Test (CFIT). The findings indicated that
multilingual children scored higher on non-verbal intelligence tasks compared to their monolingual
peers. The study concluded that multilingualism enhances cognitive flexibility and problem-solving
skills, which positively influence performance on non-verbal intelligence tests (Garcia et al., 2019).

A study examined the influence of socioeconomic status (SES) on non-verbal intelligence in school-
aged children. A sample of 700 children from diverse SES backgrounds was tested using the Wechsler
Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNV). The results showed that children from higher SES backgrounds
scored significantly higher on non-verbal intelligence tests compared to those from lower SES
backgrounds. The study concluded that access to educational resources, stimulating environments,
and parental involvement are key factors that contribute to better performance on non-verbal
intelligence tests, highlighting the impact of SES on cognitive development.(Johnson & Adams, 2020)

A study explored the relationship between gender and non-verbal intelligence using the Naglieri
Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). A sample of 1,200 adolescents, equally divided between males and
females, was tested to determine if gender plays a role in non-verbal cognitive abilities. The results
indicated no significant differences between males and females in overall performance, suggesting
that gender does not substantially impact non-verbal intelligence. The study concluded that both
genders performed similarly on tasks related to pattern recognition and spatial reasoning, reinforcing
the idea that non-verbal intelligence is largely independent of gender (Miller & Roberts, 2019).

Test Description

The Non-verbal test of Intelligence (NVTI) was developed by Dr. G.H Nafde in 1961, which in that
context and time, happened to be the first non-verbal test of intelligence constructed in India. The
nature of the test is such that it is aimed at addressing the cultural and language differences across
the Indian population, thereby creating a standardized measure for intelligence. Instead of
measuring verbal intelligence, the items used as a part of the test help in assessing intelligence
through non-verbal tasks involving the use of abstract reasoning, pattern recognition and visual
perception (Shivaji University, n.d).The test is also based on the Cattell-Horn-Caroll model of
Intelligence, thereby investigating the relationship between non-verbal cognitive abilities and overall
intelligence quotient (Nafde,1961).

The test is designed to include 4 subtests across domains of analogical reasoning, water reflection,
series, classification and are named in the same manner respectively. Each subtest consists of 20
items that are supplemented with 6 practice problems before beginning the test to familiarize the
participant with the contents of the test. The test-taker is asked to complete each of the subtests
within a stipulated period of 5 minutes, which allows the test-user to examine the speed-accuracy
tradeoff involved in test conduction. The ease in administration and language of this test makes it
relatively accessible to use across educational, clinical or research [Link] NVTI as a measure
taps into different aspects of intelligence and the item booklet for each subtest consists of problem
figures that are used to understand the concept and answer accordingly. The first subtest of
Analogies specifically examines how well test-takers are able to identify and link different shapes and
figures. The second subtest of Water reflection looks at the test-taker’s ability to understand spatial
relationships and the principle of reflection, wherein they are asked to imagine how the problem
figures provided would appear on a water surface if held vertically. The third subtest of Series allows
the test-user to assess how well test-takers are able to recognize patterns and predict the next item.
This would require a test-taker to use inductive reasoning to be able to respond to the items. Lastly,
the fourth subtest of Classification focuses on assessing the ability to group figures based on similar
attributes and identify the odd one out (NVTI Test Manual, Dr. Nafde, 1965)

Name of Subtest Number of Items Time Limit

Test 1-Analogies 20 items 5 minutes

Test 2-Water 20 items 5 minutes

Reflection

Test 3-Series 20 items 5 minutes

Test 4-Classification 20 items 5 minutes

The standardization procedure for NVTI is based on age norms derived from the high-school going
population of India. As per the test manual, the norms are provided for various age groups, ranging
from 9 years 0 months to 16 years 11 months. Each age group is based on a difference of 5 months,
for which the corresponding Mean IQ score and Standard Deviation is provided. The classification of
norms is also based on the educational environment of the test-taker and differs as per the
demographic population referred to for norming. There are separate norms for Bombay city boys
derived from 11 schools, and for Bombay city girls from 6 schools, acknowledging the potential
differences in educational experiences between genders within an urban setting. Furthermore, there
are combined norms for both boys and girls from 17 schools, which include students from Bombay
city and Mofussil areas (rural or semi-urban regions). A diversity in settings such as this, aids in
accounting for contextual changes that affect intelligence.

Separate norms have also been calculated for boys and girls. Age and class norms have been
established for each group. The age norms were calculated using only the high school population of
Bombay and neighboring areas. Despite the fact that norms for children aged 9 and up have been
developed, the exam is more useful for older children. Class norms for the Delhi group have also
been developed. Some of these norms are based on small numbers, but when interpreted widely,
they can still be used to judge the test's abilities (NVTI Test Manual, Dr. Nafde, 1965).

The psychometric soundness of the test was also calculated. The split-half reliabilities of NVTI range
from 0.89 to 0.94. Test-retest reliabilities were calculated for four groups at one-day, one-week, two-
week, and three-month intervals, with values ranging from.74 to.88. Internal consistency reliability
estimates (Kuder-Richardson formula 20) varied from.88 to.96. The test developers discovered
correlations ranging from.71 to.88 between the NVTI and other verbal and nonverbal intelligence
tests, such as Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices and the Differential Aptitude Test battery, to
indicate criterion validity. In 2009, Mensa India tested the guidelines on 2,500 students from rural
and urban areas and found that they were compliant with the original norms. The NVTI was
administered to a group of test-takers. The non-verbal nature of the test may have helped to
objectively eliminate the cultural or linguistic traits that are commonly a part of verbal tests
(Chowkase, 2021b).

Advantages and Limitations of the Non-Verbal Test of Intelligence

Advantages

Non-verbal test of intelligence by Dr. G.H. Nafde is designed to assess intelligence without relying on
language. This characteristic makes it suitable for administration to individuals regardless of their
cultural and linguistic background. Since answering the test doesn't require reading of questions or
any form of verbal communication, this test can be administered across different cultures,
eliminating concerns about cultural biases that might influence results. Additionally, this test is
beneficial for people who don't have English language proficiency, individuals who have difficulty in
language processing as well as children who don't know how to read, since it does not demand any
language proficiency to complete. The test caters to diverse needs for individuals with certain
learning disabilities, language and speech disorders and early learners as well. Lastly, the timed
nature of the test makes it a cost-efficient and time-efficient measure.

Limitations
The score on N.V.T.I. does not give a comprehensive view of the test taker’s intellectual abilities. The
N.V.T.I., being a non-verbal test, measures specific and few of many cognitive abilities. It is based on
the general (g) factor of intelligence. Consequently, the single score it yields reflects only one aspect
of intelligence and does not capture the full spectrum of cognitive abilities. Hence it provides only
one score of intelligence which reflects only one aspect of intelligence. That is, this one score doesn’t
encompass every cognitive ability hence, it is not a holistic measure of intelligence. The
overemphasis on non-verbal abilities also falls short of considering the verbal skills required in
understanding instructions and underlying intelligence.

Furthermore, the test was published in 1965 and no revisions or updates have been made to this test
post that. This means that the norms are outdated because they were established in 1965. And post
1965 there have been many phenomena which would have a lead to a change in the people.
Additionally, the norms were created only on the basis of samples from bombay and the rural areas.
So, due to the unavailability of the norms, the scores of this test cannot be interpreted when it is
administered on individuals outside India.

Methodology

Materials used

1. Non-Verbal Test of Intelligence Test Booklet

2. Non-Verbal Test of Intelligence Response Sheet

3. Non-Verbal Test of Intelligence Answer Key

4. Non-Verbal Test of Intelligence Manual

5. Non-Verbal Test of Intelligence Scoring Key

6. Stopwatch

7. Stationery

Test-Taker’s Details

Nam Age Gender Emotional State

e

D.K. 16 years 11 months Male Calm and Comfortable

Administration and Instructions

Pre-testing requirements:-

a. The tester should take the test himself/herself before giving it to a group or so as to have the
proper understanding of the testing procedure.
 b. The pupils should preferably be asked to bringing their progress registers so that they can
copy their dates of birth from them.

c. Ensure proper seating arrangement before administering the test.

1. Test the testees speaking one language at a time so as to facilitate the instructions.

2. Give introductory talk for about two minutes.

3. Distribute the Answer Sheets.

4. Ask the pupils to face the red part of it. Read the instructions on the top of the red page in
the relevant language. Get the top campaign of the Answer Sheet on the black side properly
filled in.

5. Tell them to face the red side of the Answer Sheet. Show and acquaint them with the
practice problem part of the Answer Sheet on the red side.

6. Tell them not to mark the Test Booklets or to open them until told to do so and then
distribute the Test Booklets.

7. Read the instructions on the cover page of the Test Booklet.

8. Tell the class to turn the first page. Read the matter on the left hand (red) page and also
instructions on the right hand page slowly. Explain the Practice Problems and show the class
how the answers of the first two problems are marked for them on the Answer Sheet. Get
answers of the remaining four Practice Problems marked on the Answer Sheet. Impress upon
them that they have to find out the best Answer of the five answers given. This will be better
understood when the Test 1 Practice Problem 4 is explained to them. In this case, in the
absence of the right answer (which should be a figure having very small four circles), the best
answer C is to be marked. Tell the pupils to put down their pencils. The Practice Problems
may be well explained, but no outside example should be taken, except in test 2 (Water
Reflections) where the example of a tree near a water pond may be given. The image would
look inverted (top down).

9. Read the instructions on the Answer Sheet, below the Practice Problems. This need not be
repeated for the other three subtests.

10. Read the last line of instructions in the Booklet, viz. "You have now understood these six
problems. When I say 'Start' tum this page and do the 20 Test Problems Time 5 minutes."
Make sure that the testees know where to answer the Test Problems.

11. Tell them to turn the Answer Sheet and the page of the Booklet (facing Test Problems on
black side) and immediately say 'start' starting the stopwatch. Say 'stop' after 5 minutes.

12. Get the pages of the Booklet and the Answer Sheet turned. (both having red part up)

13. Go round during the testing and ensure that the answers are being marked in the proper
column.

Follow the above procedure for the remaining three subtests.

Scoring
In the scoring process, each response for the subtests is calculated manually using an answer key.
Responses are categorized as Right (R), Wrong (W), or Blank (B), and the total number of R, W, and B
responses is determined for all four subtests. The raw score is then calculated using the formula: Raw
Score = R – (W/4). This raw score is subsequently mapped to a percentile table corresponding to the
appropriate age group. The final IQ is derived by applying the formula: IQ = 15 × [(raw score – mean
of age group) / SD of age group] + 100, where the mean and standard deviation (SD) are specific to
the age group in question.

Interpretation

The obtained IQ Score is interpreted using the following IQ Ranges -

IQ
Interpretation
Range

130+ Very Superior / Gifted in Intellectual Functioning

120-129 Superior in Intellectual Functioning

110-119 Above Average / High Average in Intellectual Functioning

90 - 109 Average in Intellectual Functioning

80 - 89 Below Average / Low Average in Intellectual Functioning

70 - 79 Borderline Impairment in Intellectual Functioning

55 - 69 Mild Impairment in Intellectual Functioning

40 - 54 Moderate Impairment in Intellectual Functioning

25 - 39 Severe Impairment in Intellectual Functioning

<25 Profound Impairment in Intellectual Functioning

Results and Interpretation

Results

Table 4.1 - Subtest Scores on Non-Verbal Test of Intelligence

Subtest Right (R) Blank (B) Wrong (W)

Subtest 1 – Analogies 15 0 5

Subtest 2 – Water Reflection 18 0 2

Subtest 3 – Series 12 0 8

Subtest 4 – Classification 7 2 11

Total 52 2 26
Table 4.1 describes the scores of the test-taker on each subtest of the test along with the total of
Right, Blank and Wrong Responses on the test. The number of Right Responses of Subtest 1 are 15,
Subtest 2 are 18, Subtest 3 are 12 and Subtest 4 are 7. The number of Blank Responses on Subtest 1
are 0, Subtest 2 are 0, Subtest 3 are 0 and Subtest 4 are 2. The number of Wrong Responses on
Subtest 1 are 5, Subtest 2 are 2, Subtest 3 are 8 and Subtest 4 are 11. The total number of Right
Responses are 52, Blank Responses are 2 and Wrong Responses are 26.

Table 4.2 - Test-taker’s scores on Non-Verbal Test of Intelligence

Raw Score 45.5

IQ Score 121.20

IQ Range 120-129

Intellectual Functioning Superior Intellectual Functioning

Table 4.2 shows the test-taker’s overall Raw Score on the Non-Verbal Test of Intelligence, the
IQ Score of the test-taker and its Range and its Interpretation.

Calculations

A. Raw Score = R – (W/4)

Raw Score = 45.5 – (26/4)

Raw Score = 45.5

B. IQ = 15 [(raw score – mean of age group)/SD of age group] + 100

IQ = 15 [(45.5-25)/14.5] + 100

IQ = 121.20

IQ Range = 120-129

Interpretation = Superior Intellectual Functioning

Interpretation

Intelligence is a broad term in psychology. General Intelligence, the g-factor, which was introduced by
Charles Spearman, represents a general cognitive ability that underlies specific skills and talents.
Robert Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Intelligence suggests that intelligence is composed of three
parts – Practical Intelligence, Analytical and Creative. Intelligence is commonly defined as the
capacity to learn from experience, adapt to new situations, understand and handle abstract
concepts, and apply knowledge to manipulate one’s environment effectively (Sternberg, 2000). It
encompasses a wide range of cognitive abilities, including problem-solving, reasoning, and the
capacity to acquire knowledge.
The Non-Verbal Test of Intelligence (NVTI) has 4 subtests that assess various cognitive abilities. The
Subtest 1 is about Analogies which assesses the recognition of how the questions and answers are
related. The Subtest 2 is Water Reflection, wherein the test-taker has to identify how the water
reflection of the image will look like. The Subtest 3 is Series, wherein one needs to identify what the
change is and how is it taking place. The Subtest 4 is Classification, where the odd one out must be
found. The test consists of 80 items in total, 20 in each subtest. The items are in multiple-choice
format where the test-taker must select the correct answer based on visual or abstract patterns. 5
minutes are timed to each subtest, and the overall test might take around 30-45 minutes including
giving instructions. The test is scored based on the number of correct responses, wherein the scores
are usually standardized and the results are interpreted using norms.

The test-taker is a 16 year and 11-month-old Male.

When asked in the PTQs, it was known that the test-taker has given and still appears for a few school
competitive exams, which have similar types of questions. Hence, the responses were apt to some
extent.

On Subtest 1, the scores of the test-taker are 15 Right Responses, 0 Blank Responses and 5 Wrong
Responses. On Subtest 2, the scores of the test-taker are 18 Right Responses, 0 Blank Responses and
2 Wrong Responses. On Subtest 3, the scores of the test-taker are 12 Right Responses, 0 Blank
Responses and 8 Wrong Responses. On Subtest 4, the scores of the test-taker are 7 Right Responses,
2 Blank Responses and 11 Wrong Responses. The total number of Right Responses are 52, 2 Blank
Responses and 26 Wrong Responses.

Once the test was scored, the IQ was calculated using the norms – Bombay and Mofussil – Boys and
Girls Combined, of the age group 16 years and 11 months. The Raw Score Obtained was – 45.5 and
the IQ Score obtained was – 121.20. This IQ score falls under the range of 120-129, which is
interpreted as Superior Intellectual Functioning.

Despite the scores, it must be noted that this score does not give a full picture of the test-taker’s
intellectual abilities. Non-Verbal Test of Intelligence is a non-verbal test that only measures specific
and few of many cognitive abilities. The reason why the test-taker might have scored more on this
due to expertise in the area, but may or may not be much great on other areas of intelligence when
tested. Thus, it is not a holistic measure of intelligence. To get a more global and comprehensive view
and understanding of one’s capacities, other assessment tools are recommended with respect to
age. Some of them can be the either Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) or Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) depending on the test-taker’s age, Stanford Binet Intelligence
Test, 5th Edition (SB-5), etc.

Conclusion

As per the test-taker’s responses and calculations, the raw score of 45.5 was obtained. The mean and
SD of the age group 16 years 11 months was 25 and 14.5 respectively, which was used to calculate
the IQ, which was found to be 121.20. This IQ range suggests Superior Intellectual Functioning.

References

Arun Kumar Singh. Tests, Measurements and Research Methods in Behavioural Sciences. New Delhi,
Tata Mcgraw-Hill, 2017.
“Test of Nonverbal Intelligence.” Psychology Wiki, Fandom, Inc., 2024,
[Link]/wiki/Test_of_Nonverbal_Intelligence. Accessed 6 Sept. 2024.

Barlow, C. (2000). Guilford’s structure of the intellect.

Beauducel , A., & Kersting, M. (2002). (PDF) fluid and crystallized intelligence and the Berlin model of
Intelligence Structure (BIS). 10.1027//1015-5759.18.2.97

Carlozzi, N.E. (2011). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test. In: Kreutzer, J.S., DeLuca, J., Caplan, B. (eds)
Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology. Springer, New York, NY. [Link]
387-79948-3_1062

C, B. (2002). From the Binet-Simon to the Wechsler-Bellevue: Tracing the history of intelligence
testing. Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.
[Link]

Cherry, K. (2023). Alfred Binet and the History of IQ Testing. Verywell Mind.
[Link]

Chowkase, A. (2021b). A Bioecological Systems view of school experiences of High-Ability students

from Rural India. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(1), 41–61. [Link]

Ciccarelli, S., & White, J. N. (2020). Psychology. Pearson.

Cohen, R. J. (2022). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement.
McGraw-Hill.

Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E. (2018). Psychological Testing and Assessment: An Introduction to Tests
and Measurement (Ninth ed.). Mc Graw Hill Education.

Davis, K., Christodoulou, J., Seider, S., & Gardner, H. E. (2011). The theory of multiple intelligences.
[Link]

Differences between verbal reasoning and non-verbal reasoning. Unacademy. (2023, August 24).
[Link]
verbal-reasoning-and-non-verbal-reasoning/

Galton, F. (1883). INQUIRIES INTO HUMAN FACULTY AND ITS DEVELOPMENT (Gavan Tredoux, Ed.;
Second). J. M. Dent & Co. (Everyman). [Link]
[Link]

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: A Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. Basic Books.

Gould, E., & Tarbox, J. (2011). ScienceDirect. Retrieved September 5, 2024, from [Link]:
[Link]

Guilford, J. P. (1967) The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Jack A. Naglieri 1, and Tulio M. Otero 2ORCID, PASS Theory of Intelligence and Its Measurement
Using the Cognitive Assessment System, 2nd Edition, August 2024
[Link]

J. Child Psychol. Psychiat. Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 117–131, 2000 Cambridge University Press ' 2000
Association for Child Psychology and Psychiatry
Jensen, A. R. (2002). GALTON’S LEGACY TO RESEARCH ON INTELLIGENCE. In Journal of Biosocial
Science (Vol. 34, Issue 02, pp. 145–172).
[Link]

Johnsen Susan.K. “APA PsycNet.” [Link], 2017, [Link]/record/2017-11927-011.

Test of nonverbal intelligence: A language-free measure of cognitive ability. ([Link])

Kuschner, E. S. (1970, January 1). Nonverbal intelligence. SpringerLink.

[Link]

Leo. (2023, October 16). Psychologily. Retrieved September 5, 2024, from [Link]:
[Link]

Mote, Thom. “Advantages of Psychological Tests | [Link].” [Link], 3 Feb. 2010,

[Link]/article/78802-advantages-psychological-tests/.

Nafde G. H. (1961). Non-Verbal Test of Intelligence. University of Mumbai.

Palamarchuk, Sofia. “Types of Performance Testing | Abstracta.” Blog about Software Development,
Testing, and AI | Abstracta, 24 July 2024, [Link]/blog/performance-testing/types-of-
performance-testing/.

Park, S. E., & Demakis, G. J. (2020, January 1). SPINGER LINK. Retrieved September 4, 2024, from
[Link]: [Link]

Quinn, K. (2024). [Link]. Retrieved from [Link]:

[Link]

Shri Vivek Uttam Gosavi Controller. (2020b). Psychology Standard Twelve.

[Link]

Shri Vivek Uttam Gosavi Controller. (2020b). Psychology Standard Twelve.

[Link]

Sternberg, R., & Grigorenko, E. (2000). Guilford’s structure of intellect model and model of creativity:
Contributions and limitations. 10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_08

“[Solved] "an Intelligence Test May Be Fully Verbal, Fully Non-Ve.” Testbook, 2021,
[Link]/question-answer/an-intelligence-test-may-be-fully-verbal-fu--
62da595e345375cb7623e198. Accessed 6 Sept. 2024.

Thurstone, L .L. (1937). Thurstone's Primary Mental Ability Tests [Database record]. APA PsycTests.
[Link]

Waddell, K. (2023, November 21). Psychometric Success. Retrieved September 6, 2024, from
[Link]: [Link]

Warschausky, S., & Raiford, S. E. (2018, January 1). SPRINGER LINK. Retrieved September 3, 2024,
from [Link]: [Link]
9_1606

Saundra Km Ciccarelli J. Nolland White Pearson Psychology

Sternberg (2015
Smith, J., & Doe, A. (2022). Age-related decline in cognitive flexibility as a predictor of non-verbal
intelligence in older adults. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 77(3), 245-256.
[Link]

Garcia, A., Smith, R., & Thompson, P. (2019). The effects of multilingualism on cognitive functioning
in children. Journal of Child Development and Cognitive Science, 45(2), 123-145.
[Link]

Johnson, M., & Adams, R. (2020). Socioeconomic status and its effects on non-verbal intelligence in
children. Child Psychology Review, 38(4), 455-470. [Link]

Miller, T., & Roberts, D. (2019). Gender and non-verbal intelligence: An assessment using the Naglieri
Nonverbal Ability Test. Cognitive Psychology Journal, 42(3), 215-230.
[Link]

Nafde, S. K. (1992). Development and Standardization of a Non-Verbal Test of Intelligence. Journal of

Psychological Research, 45(3), 214-230.

Nafde, S. K. (1995). A Comparative Study of Verbal and Non-Verbal Intelligence Testing in Children
with Language Impairments. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22(2), 150-162.

Nafde, S. K. (2001). Cross-Cultural Validation of a Non-Verbal Test of Intelligence. International

Journal of Psychological Assessment, 37(4), 299-312.

Spearman, C. (1904). "General Intelligence," Objectively Determined and Measured. The American
Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 201-292. [Link]

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A Triarchic Theory of Human Intelligence. Cambridge University
Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Handbook of intelligence. Cambridge University Press.

Appendix B

Calculations

Raw Score = R – (W/4)

Raw Score = 52 – (26/4)

Raw Score = 45.5

IQ = 15 [(raw score – mean of age group) / SD of age group] + 100

IQ = 15 [(45.5 – 25) / 14.5] + 100

IQ = 121.20

Interpretation = Superior Intellectual Functioning

Test 5- 16 Personality Factors (16PF)

Aim/Objective

To understand and demonstrate the administration, scoring and interpretation of 16 Personality

Factors (16PF)

Introduction

Personality comes from the Latin word “ persona” which means the mask used by actors to represent
characters during a theatrical play. It is a multidimensional concept. It is a unique set of traits,
behaviors and characteristics that define who we are and how we respond to our surroundings.

According to the American Psychological Association (APA), “Personality refers to the enduring
characteristics and behavior that comprise a person’s unique adjustment to life, including major
traits, interests, drives, values, self-concept, abilities, and emotional patterns.”(Personality, n.d.)

Personality is a dynamic organization, inside the person, of psychophysical systems that create the
person’s characteristic patterns of behavior, thoughts and feelings” (G.W. Allport, 1961).

According to Raymond Cattell, “Personality is that which permits a prediction of what a person will
do in a given situation.”(Cattell, 1950b)

Theories of Personality

Psychoanalytical theory of personality

Sigmund Freud was the major contributor to the psychoanalytic theory. Unconscious mental
processes are central to this theory. It refers to those desires, needs, and motivations which we are
not aware of. Our mind can be divided into three levels- Conscious, Preconscious and Unconscious.
According to him, our conscious mind is that part which deals with the current information, that is,
all the thoughts, feelings and actions of which you are aware at the very moment are part of the
conscious mind. Preconscious or subconscious mind deals with all that information for which you are
not currently aware but can become only if you pay attention. The unconscious mind stores those
socially unacceptable needs, desires, motivations and feelings which you are unaware of. Freud
proposed that our personality consists of three elements: id, ego, and superego.

Id is the part of personality that operates unconsciously. It deals with basic instincts, biological needs,
and aggressive impulses. It works on pleasure principle with the aim to gratify one’s need
immediately without considering the moral [Link] works on reality principle-delaying id’s
gratification needs until an appropriate and more realistic situation is not found. Its main objective is
to strike a balance between id’s impulsive needs and the reality of this world. Superego is the moral
master of our personality. It controls the impulsive urges of the id and pursues ego to choose morally
appropriate behavior instead of only realistic behavior.

Freud proposed a five-stage model of development of personality. According to him, the core aspects
of one’s personality developed by the age of five and remain unchanged throughout. Further, he
stated that in order to move from one stage to another, a child needs to resolve conflicts of each
stage successfully. Unless, it will lead to fixation- a continuation of an early mode of satisfaction in
later life. The five stages are oral, anal, phallic, latency and genital.

Behavioural theories of personality

Although Freud’s concepts have remained useful they seemed less useful in a sexually saturated
world. The behavioural theory emphasises on the observable behaviour and the relationship
between stimuli and respones. One of the concepts put forth by Ivan Pavlov was classical
conditioning. Conditioning is a type of learning where the ability to elicit a response is transmitted
from one stimulus to another. A person receives an unconditioned stimulus as part of the
conditioning process. On its own, this stimulation triggers a reflex. B. F. Skinner believed that the
environment was solely responsible for all behavior, including the enduring, consistent behavior
patterns studied by personality theorists. Skinner suggests that an individual's behavior is influenced
by operants, which operate in the environment, and reinforcers, which maintain or enhance the
strength of these responses. Using basic principles of learning, behavioral theorists see both normal
and abnormal behaviors as responses to various stimuli, responses that have been learned through
past experience and that are guided in the present by stimuli in the individual’s environment. To
understand personality, one needs to understand the stimulus response relationship and role of
reinforcement first. So, personality is a collection of reinforced responses performed for different
stimuli. People have consistent behavior patterns because they have particular kinds of response
tendencies. This means that over time, people learn to behave in particular ways. Behaviors that
have positive consequences tend to increase, while behaviors that have negative consequences tend
to decrease.

Albert Bandura put forth that people learn behaviours by watching others and the learned
behaviours then shape our individual personality. People tend to imitate models they like or admire
and models they consider attractive and powerful. People are also more likely to imitate models who
seem similar to themselves. Furthermore, if people see models being rewarded for their behavior,
they will be more likely to imitate those models.
Alfred Adler’s theory of Personality

Alfred Adler believed that experiences of early childhood shape one’s personality. If encouraged
during childhood, it would motivate the child to feel capable and act in a cooperative way
throughout their life. Whereas, if discouraged the child may misbehave and indulge in unhealthy
competition or withdrawal behavior. Adler explained that as a child,we feel weak, dependent, less
capable and thus inferior to others (older siblings, parents, and caregivers). This feeling of inferiority
is innate and natural. If a child decides to overcome this feeling of inferiority, then she/he would
strive for achievement or success. Thus, overcoming this feeling of inferiority is essential for optimal
development. If this feeling is not compensated, then it would lead to inferiority complex and when
overcompensated, it would lead to a superiority complex. The term birth order refers to the order in
which the children of a family were born. Adler believed that birth order had a significant and
predictable impact on a child’s personality. According to him, firstborn children are usually
responsible, obedient and intelligent individuals. The second born master their skill in social
adjustment. They are generally trusting, accepting and other-centered. And, the third order children
exhibit strong security, high self-esteem but less competitiveness. Since they are never dethroned;
they remain the baby of the family throughout their life. Alfred Adler’s Theory of Individual
Psychology posits that individuals are motivated primarily by social interests and a striving for
superiority or self-improvement.

Gordon Allport's Trait theory of personality

The first trait theory was proposed by Gordon Allport in 1936. He discovered more than 4,000
personality traits which he organized into 3 categories :- cardinal traits, central traits and secondary
traits. His theory focused on how each person was different from the other based on their
personality. Allport suggested that cardinal traits are the ones that dominate a person’s life, leading
to world changing personalities. They are the most dominating characteristics in an individual's
makeup and very rare. However, not many individuals are dominated by a single trait that shapes the
whole course of their lives. (E.g. Abraham Lincoln - honesty, Albert Einstein - brilliance, Mother
Teresa - good, charitable.) Central traits are the ones that form the basic foundation of personality.
They are characteristics that we use to describe people. E.g. intelligent, honest, shy etc. Secondary
are sometimes related to attitudes or preferences. They often appear only in certain situations or
under specific circumstances. E.g. a person might get angry when you try to tickle them, stage fright,
anxious while eating in front of other people etc. Thus Allport put forth that traits or definition of an
individual can best explain an individual’s personality.

Cattell’s Trait Theory of personality

Raymond Cattell reduced the number of main personality traits from Allport’s initial list of over 4,000
down to 171. Raymond Cattell argued that a person's personality can be understood as a pattern of
traits that can be used to predict their behavior. Characteristics are enduring and shape a person's
personality. Source and surface characteristics: The source traits comprise the fundamental
framework of an individual's personality. They are the aspects of a person's personality that tie the
outward characteristics together. Though they are few, they are able to forecast an individual's
behavior. We all possess innate qualities such as intelligence, albeit to varying degrees, some people
are born with more intelligence than others. The outward characteristics of a person's personality,
such as generosity, helpfulness, kindness, and honesty, are known as surface traits or central traits.
After conducting additional research, he discovered a few characteristics that occasionally surfaced
and were thought to be source traits of deeper, more widespread underlying components of
personality. Cattell considered his sixteen factors to be only an estimate of the number of source
traits. The 16 factors are :- A - warmth, B - reasoning, C - emotional stability, E - dominance, F -
liveliness, G - rule consciousness, H - social boldness, I - sensitivity, L - vigilance, M - abstractedness,
N - privateness, O - apprehension, Q1 - openness to change, Q2 - self reliance, Q3 - perfectionism, Q4
- tension. He theorized that the 16 source traits are the building blocks of personality. When these 16
source traits are put along other variables in the environment they make up the surface traits, which
are the traits we see and think of as personality. Surface traits are considered one construct of
multiple traits that go together. For example, being altruistic would be a surface trait while source
traits that comprise this would be being unselfish, not greedy, sharing, and being thoughtful. A
surface trait is composed of the source traits that can be observed in an individual and are easily
observable and common clusters of behavior.

Big five personality traits theory

The Big Five Personality Traits, also known as OCEAN or CANOE, are a psychological model that
describe five broad dimensions of personality: Openness to experience, Conscientiousness,
Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. Originally developed in 1949, the big 5 personality
traits is a theory established by D. W. Fiske was later expanded upon by other researchers including
Norman (1967), Smith (1967), Goldberg (1981), and McCrae & Costa (1987). These traits are believed
to be relatively stable throughout an individual’s lifetime. The Big Five Model asserts that each
personality trait lies on a spectrum. Therefore, individuals are ranked on a scale between the two
extreme ends of five broad dimensions. For instance, when measuring Extraversion, one would not
be classified as purely extroverted or introverted, but placed on a scale determining their level of
extraversion. Openness to experience - reflects on an individual’s imagination, creativity and
willingness to embrace new ideas. Conscientiousness - reflects the level of self - discipline,
organization and goal directedness of an individual. Extraversion - how outgoing, sociable and
talkative an individual is. Reflects the tendency and intensity to which someone seeks interaction
with their environment. Agreeableness - measures the degree of cooperativeness and empathy.
Neuroticism - tendency to experience anxiety, fear, worry, anger etc.

Eysenck’s personality theory

According to Eysenck, the sixteen primary personality factors identified by Cattell in the 16-PF test
were unreliable and could not be replicated. According to Eysenck, higher order factors are similar to
types, and they represent combinations of primary personality traits. Thus, he considered the
sixteen factors that Cattell included in the 16-PF as primary factors, whereas extraversion,
neuroticism, and psychoticism were second-order factors (or types). He strongly believed in the
inheritance of personality and intelligence. He developed a model of personality based on three
universal traits or super factors:-

In the dimension of introversion / extraversion, the impulsiveness associated with extraversion is

most likely hereditary (a temperamental trait), whereas the sociability aspect of extraversion is more
likely to be influenced by one’s environment. The neuroticism/emotional stability dimension of
Eysenck’s trait theory is related to moodiness versus being even-tempered. The trait of neuroticism
refers to an individual’s tendency to become upset or emotional, while stability refers to the
tendency to remain emotionally constant. The dimension of psychoticism incorporates traits of
dominance-leadership, dominance-submission, sensation seeking, and the lack of a superego. He
suggested that based on the presence, absence and the extent of each of these traits, predictions
about an individual can be formed. Children who score high on psychoticism will quite often have
conduct issues and learning challenges, they may become loners, often skip school, commit crimes
and felonies, and may be disliked by their teachers, relatives and peers. As youngsters or grown-ups,
these individuals don't commonly benefit from psychotherapies or counseling, as they are usually
paranoid and suspicious.

Other tests

A wide variety of tests are available to measure the personality of an individual. They are broadly
categorized into- projective tests, self-report inventories, objective personality tests, behavioral
assessments, implicit tests, objective tests, etc. Objective self-report inventories are the most widely
used and it requires the test-taker’s to answer questions about their own thoughts, behaviors and
feelings. Some of them include- Eysenck’s Personality Questionnaire (EPQ), Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory (MMPI), Myers-Briggs type indicator (MBTI), Neo Personality Inventory (NEO-
PI), etc.

Eysenck’s Personality Questionnaire (EPQ)

Eysenck’s Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) is a 100-item form (shorter version- 48 items) based on
the personality theory given by Hans Eysenck in the year 1975. To improve the reliability and validity
of this original scale, a revised version called EPQ-R was published in 1991. He focused on three main
dimensions of personality, namely, Extraversion (E- measures sociability), Neuroticism (N- measures
emotional instability ), and Psychoticism (P- measures lack of empathy, aggressiveness, etc). This is
also sometimes referred to as the PEN model. Along with measuring these three traits, the
questionnaire also has a lie-scale (L) to detect and assess social desirability. The test-takers are to
answer questions in a “yes” or “no” format. It is extensively used in clinical settings to observe the
behavior tendencies, temperament and predisposition to psychiatric conditions like depression,
anxiety, etc. and in occupational settings for evaluation of job candidates.

NEO- Personality Inventory (NEO-PI)

NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI), based on the Five-Factor Model (FFM- Big Five), was developed
in 1978 by Paul Costa and Robert McCrae. It consists of 240 items, with the latest version being NEO-
PI-3, however, a shorter version called NEO-FFI with 60 items is available as well. Items are rated on a
5-point likert scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” It measures 5 personality
traits of an individual, namely- Neuroticism (N- emotional stability and tendency to experience
negative thoughts), Extraversion (E- sociability), Openness to Experience (O- creativity, curiosity),
Agreeableness (A- cooperativeness) and Conscientiousness (C- organization, dependability).
Substantial cross-cultural research supports the universality, reliability and validity of the Inventory. It
is used in clinical, educational and organizational settings as well as research in personality to assess
emotional, interpersonal, experiential and motivational styles.

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) was developed by Isabel Briggs Myers and Katherine CookBriggs
in 1943, based on the theory of psychological types by Carl Jung to understand personality
differences and help people understand themselves. Its development also coincided with World War
II and it was believed that understanding the personality of individuals can help them in choosing the
right kind of work- one based on their strengths and weaknesses. It categorizes the individuals into
16 personality types based on the four dichotomies- Introversion vs. Extraversion, Sensing vs.
Intuition, Thinking vs. Feeling and Judging vs, Perceiving. It consists of 94 questions with
dichotomous choices. The respondent is to select the one that best describes them, for example,
choosing between the options “I am more energized by social interaction” or “I am more energized
by solitary activities.” It takes around 15-25 minutes for them to complete the test. The MBTI is
frequently used to improve self-awareness, team dynamics, and communication in organizational
settings, career counseling, and personal development contexts. Despite its widespread acceptance,
it has come under fire for its scant empirical backing and binary classification of complex personality
traits. However, it is still a useful tool for starting conversations about personal differences and
comprehending basic personality preferences in formal research and practical contexts.

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) was developed by Starke Hathaway and J.C.
McKinley in 1943 to assess personality traits and psychopathology. The first version consisted of 550
items. In 1989, MMPI-2 was published to reword, replace and remove the items with outdated
language and reframe in a contemporary way to enhance the utility in modern clinical settings. This is
the most-widely-used version amongst the three. It consists of 567 true-false items which takes the
test-taker around 60-70 minutes to complete. It measures the psychological conditions based on 10
clinical scales, validity scales as well as content scales for specific behaviors. The clinical scale consists
of Hypochondriasis (bodily preoccupations and fears), Depression, Hysteria (developing physical
symptoms under stress), Psychopathic Deviate (social deviance), Paranoia (ideation and
suspiciousness), Psychasthenia (anxiety and obsessive-compulsive tendencies), Schizophrenia
(thought disturbance, social alienation), Hypomania (elevated mood tendencies) and Social
Introversion. The validity scales include L scale (Lie) that detects attempts to present oneself
favorably, F scale (Frequency) that measures atypical responses and K scale (Correction) that detects
defensiveness in responses and adjusts for it. Along with being used in clinical settings, it is also used
in forensic and occupational settings like law enforcement recruitment. A third version, MMPI-2-RF
(Restructured Form) with 338 items, was published in 2008. It aimed for a quicker assessment and to
reduce overlap between the scale and hence improve its discriminant validity. MMPI is one of the
most clinically robust personality assessments with strong reliability and empirical validity.

Research Using 16PF

A research study aimed to investigate how personality traits, as measured by the 16 Personality
Factor Questionnaire (16PF), are associated with job performance in corporate professionals. The
study identified several significant correlations between personality traits and job performance such
as Emotional Stability (Factor C). Employees with higher emotional stability demonstrated superior
job performance, particularly under stress. Higher scores in Dominance (Factor E) were associated
with leadership effectiveness. Higher Self-Control (Factor Q3) and organizational ability correlated
with better supervisor ratings. Employees with high Reasoning Ability (Factor B) were more efficient
in problem-solving and completing complex tasks. These findings showed that personality traits such
as emotional stability, dominance, and reasoning can predict job performance and contribute to
organizational success. (Cattell, 1946)
A similar research study assessed how 16PF factors such as dominance, self-reliance, and warmth
were associated with leadership styles and effectiveness and how certain personality traits predict
leadership success. This study used latent class analysis to examine how personality traits combine
and interact to form subpopulations of leaders, and how these subpopulations relate to performance
criteria. The findings of the study highlighted that specific 16PF personality traits, particularly
dominance, self-reliance, and warmth, are strong predictors of leadership success. The study
concluded that these traits significantly impact leadership effectiveness, with distinct combinations
of traits forming subpopulations of leaders that exhibit different performance outcomes. (Judge &
Bono, 2016)

A longitudinal study using the 16PF to predict academic success was conducted by Chamorro-
Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. in 2020. It examined how certain personality traits (e.g., openness to
experience, reasoning) could predict academic achievement over time. In particular Neuroticism and
Conscientiousness—were found to predict overall final exam marks over and above several academic
predictors, accounting for more than 10% of unique variance in overall exam marks. Thus results
showed that Neuroticism may definitely impair academic performance, while Conscientiousness may
lead to higher academic achievement. (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2020).

A study by Carver et al. in 2020 examined how certain 16PF personality traits, especially emotional
stability and anxiety, were related to coping mechanisms during stressful situations. The study
highlighted how personality influences individual responses to stress. The research found that traits
such as emotional stability were linked to more effective, adaptive coping mechanisms, while traits
like anxiety were associated with less effective, maladaptive coping strategies. In essence, individuals
with higher emotional stability were more likely to use constructive coping mechanisms in stressful
situations, whereas those with higher levels of anxiety were more prone to ineffective stress
management strategies. (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 2020).

Test Description

The 16 Personality Factor test was developed in the year 1994 by Cattell R.B. based on his theory of
personality. The 16PF Questionnaire has undergone four major revisions in 1956, 1962, 1968, and its
fifth edition in 1993 (Cattell, R.B. et al.). The latest edition includes 185 multiple-choice items with a
three-point answer format, covering daily behavior, interests, and opinions in a non-threatening way.
The short ability scale items (Factor B) are grouped at the end with separate instructions. The
questionnaire, designed for individuals aged 16 and older, is written at a fifth-grade reading level. It
provides scores across 16 primary scales, 5 global scales, and 3 response bias scales. Each scale is
bipolar, with meaningful definitions at both ends, and scores are reported in stens (standardized ten
scores) ranging from 1 to 10, with a mean of 5.5 and a standard deviation of 2.0. The most recent
standardization, based on over 10,000 individuals, was published in 2001.

A shorter version, the 16PF Select (Cattell, R.B. et al., 1999), developed for employee selection, takes
20 minutes and consists of shortened scales. Another abbreviated version, the 16PF Express
(Gorsuch, 2006), is a 15-minute measure of all the traits, with four to five items per factor.
Additionally, the 16PF traits are included in the PsychEval Personality Questionnaire (PEPQ; Cattell,
R.B. et al., 2003), a comprehensive tool that assesses both normal and abnormal personality
dimensions.

Reliability

The technical manual for the fifth version of the 16 PF contains a thorough description of its
psychometric characteristic. For the primary factor scales across a two-week and two-month
timeframe, the mean test-retest reliability (also known as the coefficient of stability) is 0.80 and 0.70,
respectively. The average coefficient alpha also known as the internal consistency-reliability is 0.76.
Because the Global Factor scales are aggregations of many primary factors with positive correlations,
their reliability coefficients are larger. The reliability estimates are believed to be high enough to offer
useful personnel and career counseling given the length and breadth of the scales.

Validity

The technical manual and research literature reports on validity studies offer a substantial amount of
evidence supporting the construct and criterion-related validity of the primary and global 16PF
measures. The results of other popular personality questionnaires, such as the Personality Research
Form, the California Psychological Inventory, and the NEO Personality Inventory, have shown strong
correlation with trait scores for 16PF scales in numerous research. This shows that the 16PF
measures indeed evaluate the characteristics that it claims to measure. A variety of significant social
outcomes, such as leadership effectiveness, drug usage and creative achievement, have been found
to be well predicted by 16PF measures, according to occupational and social psychologists. The 16PF
was among the best at predicting a number of behavioral behaviors, according to a recent
comparison analysis of several major personality instruments.

Norms

The norms are based on the results collected from nearly 5,000 individuals. The sampling was done
on ten levels comparing community size as well as socioeconomic status, geographical location, and
race. The final norm sample comprised data from thirty states. The standardization of the test has
been done on the basis of development of norms for the general American population. The norm
table indicates Sten scores, mean and Standard deviation for all the factors evaluated on the basis of
age and gender. The latest version of the 16 Personality Factors Questionnaire was administered to a
normative sample of 2500 test-takers. Sample stratification was conducted based on sex, age, race
and educational qualifications of the test-takers. Both the separate and combined-sex norm tables
were provided, which are to be used based on the specific target profiles and population. As the Sten
scores given are normalized, they hope to produce a normal distribution of scores as opposed to a
linear transformation that would be produced from the raw scores. Here, the norm tables are given
for Form C, Form D, and a combination of the two-based on the age and sex of the test-takers.
Finally, the ages for the norm tables for both sexes are 17,20, and 30 respectively. (Rivera, 1996)

Applications of 16PF.

The 16PF (Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire) is a comprehensive measure of personality used
by psychologists and other professionals across various fields. In human resource management, it is
commonly employed for recruitment and selection, helping employers match candidates' personality
traits with job requirements. The 16PF is a versatile tool that aids in understanding human behavior,
making it valuable in numerous areas beyond clinical [Link], the 16PF provides insights
into personal attributes such as insight capacity, self-esteem, cognitive style, openness to change,
and more. It assesses interpersonal dynamics, including trust levels, empathy, attachment quality,
interpersonal needs, and attitudes toward authority and power dynamics. These characteristics can
be crucial in various contexts, allowing a more nuanced understanding of individual personalities. In
clinical settings, the 16PF offers a normal-range assessment of anxiety, emotional stability, and
adjustment, guiding clinicians in forming a therapeutic plan, building rapport, and selecting
appropriate [Link] organizational use, the 16PF is valuable for career and
occupational selection, helping determine an individual’s suitability for specific job roles. For
example, roles requiring interpersonal skills may benefit from candidates who score high in traits like
sociability or warmth, while jobs demanding analytical thinking or independence might be better
suited for individuals with strong reasoning abilities and self-reliance, all of which the 16PF
measures. Furthermore, the test is useful for employee development and team-building. By
understanding team members’ personality traits, employers can assign roles that align with
individual strengths, enhancing both job satisfaction and productivity.

Strengths and limitations of 16PF

Advantages

The 16PF test has been used widely in a variety of settings such as forensic, clinical, counseling,
career counseling, research and industrial settings. The reason for its popularity is due its good
psychometric characteristics. The test has undergone revisions which has made it easy to use and
increased its predictive value. The special considerations undertaken with respect to response style
has helped in increasing the validity of the test. Its high face validity, internal consistency and
reliability has made it a popular tool in research studies. The test scores give an in-depth analysis of
the test-takers’ leadership qualities, creativity, academic achievement, conscientiousness, social
skills, empathy, self-esteem, marital adjustment, power dynamics, coping patterns, cognitive
processing style and dozens of occupational profiles. This is due to good operationalization of the
traits measured. (Cattell, H. E., & Schuerger, J. M. (2003)

Another strength of the test is that it is easy to administer as the instructions are clearly printed in
the booklet and it requires little supervision. Online administration has also been possible through
software or via the internet which has increased access to people throughout the world. The scoring
too can be done manually or by the computer which includes additional scores and information that
strengthens test interpretation. The test helps in facilitating dialogue with the clinician as it promotes
empathy and understanding right from the first session. This then aids in result discussion of
everyday experience with the client and thus enables a sense of partnership in the assessment and
planning process. As a result, self-awareness increases and discussion is facilitated. Finally the results
aid in personnel selection in industries and personnel development, career decisions for students
and personality evaluations in clinical settings and for treatment strategies. Thus it’s also useful in
rehabilitation settings. (Cattell, H. E., & Schuerger, J. M. (2003))

Limitations

The test comes with its own set of limitations. Other aspects of a person (e.g., motivation, interests,
ability) also are important in the prediction of future behavior. Thus the 16PF Fifth Edition should
never be the sole basis for decision making or selection, although it can be useful as a component of
a selection battery. Educational level and cultural differences seem to affect the scale scores. The test
has received criticism due to the complexity of the factor analytical approach. Another limitation is
second order factor levels may seem to many to be less important than primary factors when in fact,
they interrelate. The relabeling to global factors means that it should also be treated equally
important. This might then improve the instrument’s reliability. (Hipolito, R. (n.d.))

An important limitation to be noted is that the test may present difficulties to clients who have
English as their second language. (16 personality factor questionnaire test critique , 2024)The test has
low predictive power as it is a general personality assessment. It lacks precision in predicting job
performance in specific work environments and contexts (Sharadze, 2024). Several elements of the
16PF consider multicultural issues. Scoring high on some of the specific factors does not necessarily
account for the cultural values of the client’s culture, but the majority of the western culture which
severely limits the interpretation of scores for people from other cultures (Musawar Ali, 2019).
Additionally some practitioners prioritize certain factors over the other based on their experience
and there has not been uniformity in the scoring guidelines which could distort results.

A very important limitation is that the test is a self- report measure which could lead to possible
malingering by individuals when there are high stakes. While the test has good reliability the test
items are situation specific which could affect the results (Hipolito, R. (n.d.)).

Methodology

Materials used

Materials used while conducting the test –

1. 16 PF Form C Test Booklet

2. 16 PF Answer Sheet

3. Stopwatch

4. Stationery

Participant’s Details

Name Ag Gender Emotional State

e

DB 22 F Calm and Comfortable

Administration and Instructions

WHAT TO DO: Inside this booklet are some questions to see what attitudes and interests you have.
There are no "right" and "wrong" answers because everyone has the right to his own views. To be
able to get the best advice from your results, you will want to answer them exactly and truly.

If a separate "Answer Sheet" has not been given to you, turn this booklet over and tear off the
Answer Sheet on the back page.

Write your name and all other information asked for on the top line of the Answer Sheet.

First you should answer the four sample questions below so that you can see whether you need to
ask anything before starting. Although you are to read the questions in this book-let, you must record
your answers on the answer sheet (alongside the same number as in the booklet).

There are three possible answers to each question. Read the following examples and mark your
answers at the top of your answer sheet where it says "Examples." Fill in the left-hand box if your
answer choice is the "a" answer, in the middle box if your answer choice then is the "b" answer, and
in the right-hand box if you choose the "c" answer.
EXAMPLES:

1. I like to watch team games.

a. yes, b. occasionally, c. no.

2. I prefer people who:

a. are reserved, b. (are) in between, c. make friends quickly.

3. Money cannot bring happiness.

a. yes (true), b. in between, c. no (ialse),

4. Woman is to child as cat is to:

a. kitten, b. dog, c. boy.

In the last example there is a right answer-kitten. But there are very few such reasoning items.

Ask now if anything is not clear. The examiner will tell you in a moment to turn the page and start.

When you answer, keep these four points in mind:

1. You are asked not to spend time pondering. Give the first, natural answer as it comes to
you. Of course, the questions are too short to give you all the particulars you would
sometimes like to have. For instance, the above question asks you about "team games" and
you might be fonder of football than basketball. But you are to reply "for the average game",
or to strike an average in situations of the kind stated. Give the best answer you can at a rate
not slower than five or six a minute. You should finish in a little more than half an hour.

2. Try not to fall back on the middle, "uncertain" answers except when the answer at either end
is really impossible for you—perhaps once every four or five questions.

3. Be sure not to skip anything, but answer every question, somehow. Some may not apply to
you very well, but give your best guess. Some may seem personal; but remember that the
answer sheets are kept confidential and cannot be scored without a special stencil key.
Answers 10 particular questions are not inspected.

4. Answer as honestly as possible what is true of you. Do not merely mark what seems "the
right thing to say" to impress the examiner.

DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL TOLD TO DO SO

Scoring

First, the administrator examines the answer sheet for single, unambiguous responses while also
verifying that the answers lack a specific pattern. The test taker responds to a series of items or
questions designed to measure each of the 16 personality factors. The comprehensive scoring set for
the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire consists of a scoring key, norm tables, and a profile sheet.

The responses are scored based on a predetermined answer key, where responses are assigned
numerical values of 0,1 and 2 respectively. The test taker’s scores on relevant items for each factor
are summed to obtain a raw score for that factor. This scoring is done for each factor. The raw scores
are converted into Sten scores using the norm table. The Sten scores are obtained and interpreted
for each personality factor.

Items on the motivational distortion scale are then scored using the scoring key. The obtained raw
scores are converted to sten scores using the norm table on the basis of gender of the test-taker. If
the Sten scores on the motivational distortion scale are found to be higher than 7, respective
adjustments are made to various factors.

Interpretation

For each factor, the Sten Score ranges are given in order to interpret the same. The scores are
interpreted to be either Low, Average or High.

Sten
Interpretation
Score

1-3 Low

4-7 Average

8 - 10 High

The scores will also be checked for Motivational Distortion (MD)

 Faking Good (Social Desirability)

 Faking Bad

If the Sten Score is 7 or above, then MD Sten Score adjustment must be done. If the score is –

7 - +1 in Q4 and -1 from C

8 - +1 in L, O, Q4 and -1 from A, C, G, Q3

9 - +1 in F, L, O, Q4 and -1 from A, C, G, Q3

10 - +2 in Q4, -2 from C, +1 in F, L, O and -1 in A, G, H, Q3

Results and Interpretation

Results

Table 5.1 – Test-taker’s scores on the 16 PF Test.

Raw
Factors Sten Scores Adjusted Sten Scores Interpretation
Score

(A) Warmth 7 4 - Average

(B) Reasoning 5 6 - Average

(C) Emotional Stability 5 4 - Average

(E) Dominance 8 8 - High

 (F) Liveliness 7 5 - Average

(G) Rule Consciousness 6 5 - Average

(H) Social Boldness 7 6 - Average

I. Sensitivity 7 5 - Average

(L) Vigilance 8 8 - High

(M) Abstractedness 5 5 - Average

(N) Privateness 7 8 - High

(O) Apprehension 8 6 - Average

(Q1) Openness to Change 5 5 - Average

(Q2) Self-Reliance 4 6 - Average

(Q3) Perfectionism 3 2 - Low

(Q4) Tension 5 4 - Average

(MD) Motivational Distortion 7 5 - Average

Table describes the raw scores and the standard sten scores of the test-taker on all the factors of the
16 PF. As can be seen above, the test-taker has high scores on – (E) Dominance Factor, (L) Vigilance
Factor and (N) Privateness Factor. The test-taker has average scores on – (A) Warmth Factor, (B)
Reasoning Factor, (C) Emotional Stability Factor, (F) Liveliness Factor, (G) Rule Conscious Factor, (H)
Social Boldness Factor, (I) Sensitivity Factor, (M) Abstractedness Factor, (O) Apprehension Factor, (Q1)
Openness to Change Factor, (Q2) Self-Reliance Factor and (Q4) Tension Factor. The test-taker has low
score on – (Q3) Perfectionism Factor.

Additionally, the test taker has low scores on (MD) Motivational Distortion Scale, ie. a raw score of 7
and a sten score of 5, indicating that the scores are fairly accurate and not subjected to social
desirability or malingering.

Interpretation

The test, 16 Personality Questionnaire (16PF) is, as the name suggests, a Personality Assessment
Tool, which was developed by Raymond Cattell in 1969. The test measures 16 Primary Personality
Traits, wherein each represents a distinct personality dimension (Cattell, 1970). The test measures 16
Factors, those are - Warmth, Reasoning, Emotional Stability, Dominance, Liveliness, Rule
Consciousness, Social Boldness, Sensitivity, Vigilance, Abstractness, Privateness, Apprehension,
Openness to Change, Self-Reliance, Perfection, and Tension (Cattell, 1970). The test contains 105
forced-choice items. The test-taker has to choose between three options where the best choice
according to them resides. The test measures various aspects of personality, including emotional
stability, extroversion and conscientiousness. The test takes about 30-45 minutes approximately.
Once the test is administered, the test must be scored. Scores must be calculated for each of the 16
factors, which provides a detailed personality profile.
The 16 PF has been widely used in various fields, including psychology, education, and career
counselling. It provides valuable insights into an individual's personality and can be used for various
purposes, such as career guidance, personal development, and research.

The test taker, on the following factors, contains an average score. The test-taker has a Raw Score of
7 and a Sten Score of 4 on (A) Warmth Factor. This is interpreted as an Average Score. This is
indicative that the test-taker is not only easy-going, emotionally expressive, kind and soft-hearted,
but at the same time the test-taker also has a sceptical, indecisive personality, they are rigid at times
and want to stick to their, and only their choices and decisions, irrespective of anything.

The test-taker has a Raw Score of 5 and a Sten Score of 6 on (B) Reasoning Factor. This is interpreted
as an Average Score. This is indicative of the test-taker being able to grasp ideas better, are a fast
learner and also have a level of correlation with culture with some level of alertness. Not just this,
but there are also times when if the test-taker is distracted enough, might not be able to grasp well
or learn fast.

The test-taker has a Raw Score of 5 and a Sten Score of 4 on (C) Emotional Stability Factor. This is
interpreted as an Average Score. This is indicative of the test-taker being emotionally mature, being
realistic about life as well as possess some kind of ego strength. Not just this, but the test taker
sometimes has a low tolerance for unsatisfactory conditions and gets frustrated easily. Moreover, the
test-taker is fretful in some situations, sometimes emotional and have some kind of dissatisfaction
and annoyance.

The test-taker has a Raw Score of 7 and a Sten Score of 5 on (F) Liveliness Factor. This is interpreted
as an Average Score. This is indicative that the test-taker has a trait of being frank and talkative, also
having to be expressive and carefree. There are times when they are also elected as leaders. But at
the same time, the test-taker sometimes tends to be pessimistic, dour, and dependent on others in
some situations as well as sober in nature.

The test-taker has a Raw Score of 6 and a Sten Score of 5 on (G) Rule Consciousness Factor. This is
interpreted as an Average Score. This is indicative of the test-taker having dominated by a sense of
duty, being planful and responsible, moralistic, conscientious and are hardworking people, but they
also lack in effort for group undertakings and cultural demands. Their freedom from group influence
may in some situations lead to antisocial acts, but at times, makes them more effective.

The test-taker has a Raw Score of 7 and a Sten Score of 6 on (H) Social Boldness Factor. This is
interpreted as an Average Score. This is indicative of being sociable, bold, ready to try new things,
spontaneous and abundant in emotional response. But also, they tend to be shy, cautious and have
inferiority feelings, they tend to be slow and impeded in expressing themselves.

The test-taker has a Raw Score of 7 and a Sten Score of 5 on (I) Sensitivity Factor. This is interpreted
as an Average Score. This is indicative of being emotionally sensitive, fanciful and artistically
fastidious, they are demanding of attention and help, impatient and also dependent. They are also
tough, realistic and independent, but also skeptical of subjective, cultural elaborations.

The test-taker has a Raw Score of 5 and a Sten Score of 5 on (M) Abstractedness. This is interpreted
as an Average Score. This is indicative of the test-taker being unconventional, self-motivated, they are
concerned with essentials, they are often absorbed in their own thought and are oblivious of
particular people and physical realities. They are also attentive to practical matters and are subjected
to the dictation of what is obviously possible. Sometimes, they are unimaginative.
The test-taker has a Raw Score of 8 and a Sten Score of 6 on (O) Apprehension Factor. This is
interpreted as an Average Score. This is indicative of the test-taker having a strong sense of obligation
and high expectations of themselves. They tend to be anxious and guilt-stricken over difficulties, but
at the same time, there is also maturity and unanxious confidence in themselves and their capacity
to deal with things. They can be secure to the point of being insensitive to the feedback of others.

The test-taker has a Raw Score of 5 and a Sten Score of 5 on (Q1) Openness to Change Factor. This is
interpreted as an Average Score. This is indicative of the test taker being interested in intellectual
matters as well as having doubts on fundamental matter, but also at the same time, are confident in
what they have been taught to believe. They tend to oppose and postpone change too.

The test-taker has a Raw Score of 4 and a Sten Score of 6 on (Q2) Self-Reliance Factor. This is
interpreted as an Average Score. This is indicative of the test-taker being temperamentally
independent, accustomed to going their own way as well as making decisions and taking action by
oneself. They sometimes also prefer making decisions with others and prefer in some situations, to
depend on social approval and admiration.

The test-taker has a Raw Score of 5 and a Sten Score of 4 on (Q4) Tension Factor. This is interpreted
as an Average Score. This is indicative of having to feel tensed but also relaxed, restless but also
composed. In some situations, oversatisfaction may also lead to laziness and low performance.
Sometimes, frustration may represent an excess of stimulated but undischarged drive.

The test taker, on the following factors, contains a high score. The test-taker has a Raw Score of 8 and
a Sten Score of 8 on (E) Dominance Factor. This is interpreted as a High Score. This is indicative of the
test-taker being assertive, independent minded, being self-assured, and sometimes, they tend to be
authoritarian.

The test-taker has a Raw Score of 8 and a Sten Score of 8 on (L) Vigilance Factor. This is interpreted as
a High Score. This is indicative of the test-taker being doubtful of people and mistrusting. There is
often an involvement in their own egos and are self-opinionated. There is usually a higher interest in
internal mental life. Usually, there is a deliberate in their actions, unconcerned about other people,
and poor team members.

The test-taker has a Raw Score of 7 and a Sten Score of 8 on (N) Privateness Factor. This is interpreted
as a High Score. This is indicative of the test-taker having the tendency to be polished, experienced
and shrewd. There is a perceptive and heard headed approach to people and problems, and
efficiency is high in approach to situations.

The test taker, on the following factor, contains a low score. The test-taker has a Raw Score of 3 and a
Sten Score of 2 on (Q3) Perfectionism Factor. This is interpreted as a Low Score. This is indicative of
not being bothered with control, having little regard for social demands. They are impetuous and not
overly considerate, careful or painstaking. There is maladjustment too.

The test-taker has a Raw Score of 7 and a Sten Score of 5 on (MD) Motivational Distortion Factor. This
is indicative of an Average Score, which means the test-taker has honestly answered the
questionnaire.

Conclusion

The scores calculated were found out to be as follows –

 Factors Interpretation

(A) Warmth Average

(B) Reasoning Average

(C) Emotional Stability Average

(E) Dominance High

(F) Liveliness Average

(G) Rule Consciousness Average

(H) Social Boldness Average

I. Sensitivity Average

(L) Vigilance High

(M) Abstractedness Average

(N) Privateness High

(O) Apprehension Average

(Q1) Openness to Change Average

(Q2) Self-Reliance Average

(Q3) Perfectionism Low

(Q4) Tension Average

Appendix B

Calculations

1. Warmth (Factor A)

Raw Score – 0+2+2+2+1+0 = 7

Sten Score = 4

Interpretation = Average

2. Reasoning (Factor B)

Raw Score – 1+1+1+1+0+0+1+0 = 5

Sten Score = 6

Interpretation = Average

3. Emotional Stability (Factor C)

Raw Score – 1+1+1+1+0+1 = 5

Sten Score = 4

Interpretation = Average

4. Dominance (Factor E)

Raw Score – 1+2+0+1+2+2 = 8

Sten Score = 8

Interpretation = High

5. Liveliness (Factor F)

Raw Score – 1+1+2+1+1+1 =7

Sten Score = 5

Interpretation = Average

6. Rule Consciousness (Factor G)

Raw Score – 2+0+1+1+2+0 = 6

Sten Score = 5

Interpretation = Average

7. Social Boldness (Factor H)

Raw Score – 1+1+2+1+1+1 =7

Sten Score = 6

Interpretation = Average

8. Sensitivity (Factor I)

Raw Score – 2+2+1+1+1+0 = 7

Sten Score = 5

Interpretation = Average

9. Vigilance (Factor L)

Raw Score – 2+2+1+1+1+1 = 8

Sten Score = 8

Interpretation = High

10. Abstractedness (Factor M)

Raw Score – 1+1+0+1+1+1 = 5

Sten Score = 5

Interpretation = Average

11. privateness (Factor N)

Raw Score – 1+1+1+1+2+1 = 7

Sten Score = 8

Interpretation = High

12. Apprehension (Factor O)

Raw Score – 2+1+2+0+2+1 = 8

Sten Score = 6

Interpretation = Average

13. Openness to Change (Factor Q1)

Raw Score – 2+1+1+0+0+1 = 5

Sten Score = 5

Interpretation = Average

14. Self-Reliance (Factor Q2)

Raw Score – 1+0+0+2+1+0 = 4

Sten Score = 6

Interpretation = Average

15. Perfectionism (Factor Q3)

Raw Score – 1+0+1+0+1+0 = 3

Sten Score = 2

Interpretation = Low

16. Tension (Factor Q4)

Raw Score – 1+1+2+0+0+1 = 7

Sten Score = 5

Interpretation = Average

17. Motivational Distortion (MD)

Raw Score – 1+2+1+1+0+1+1 = 7

Sten Score = 5

Interpretation = Average

References

Cattell, H. E., & Mead, A. D. (2008). The sixteen personality factor questionnaire (16PF). The SAGE
handbook of personality theory and assessment, 2, 135-159.
Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (2001). MMPI-2: Manual
for administration, scoring, and interpretation (Rev. ed.). University of Minnesota Press.

Behavioral theory of personality. EMPOWER COMMUNITY HEALTH. (2020).

[Link]

Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically
based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 267-283.

Cascio Wayne F., Aguinis Herman. Applied Psychology in Human Resource Management. 7th ed.
Prentice-Hall Inc.; Upper Saddle River: 2011.

Cattell, R.B. (1957). Personality and Motivation Structure and Measurement. World Book.

Cattell, H. E. (2001). The Sixteen personality factor (16PF) questionnaire. Understanding

Psychological Assessment, 187–215. [Link]

Cattell, H. E., & Schuerger, J. M. (2003). Essentials of 16PF assessment. John Wiley & Sons.

Cattell, R.B. Cattell, A.K., Cattell, H.E.P. and Kelly, M.L. (1999) The 16PF Select Manual. Champaign, IL:
Institute for Personality and Ability Testing

Cattell R. B., Eber H. W., Tatsuoka Maurice M. Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor
Questionnaire (16PF) Institute for Personality and Ability Testing; Champaign: 1970

Cattell, R.B. Cattell, A.K., Cattell, H.E.P., Russell, M.T. and Bedwell, S. (2003) The PsychEval Personality
Questionnaire. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO Personality Inventory–Revised (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-
Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.

Crowther, P., & Briant, S. (2020). Predicting Academic Success: A Longitudinal Study of University
Design Students. International Journal of Art & Design Education.

Egyankosh. (2020, Jan). Retrieved from [Link]:

[Link]

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Hodder
and Stoughton.

Goodenough, F. L. (1926). Measurement of intelligence by drawings. World Book Company.

Gorsuch, R.L. (2006) The 16PF Express Edition: A Supplemental Chapter to the 16PF Fifth Edition
Administrator’s Manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Grailey, K., Lound, A., Murray, E., & Brett, S. J. (2023). The influence of personality on psychological
safety, the presence of stress and chosen professional roles in the healthcare environment. PloS one,
18(6), e0286796. [Link]

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in
implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6),
1464-1480. [Link]

Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1989). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2)
Manual. University of Minnesota Press.
Hipolito, R. (n.d.). A critique of the 16 Personality Factors-Fifth ed. ERIC – Education Resources
Information Center.

Hoffman, R. (2024, January 24). simplypsychology. Retrieved from [Link]:

[Link]

Karson, W & J. W O'Dell.(1976). A Guide to the Clinical Use of the 16PF. University of Michigan Press.
[Link]

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2008). The Five-Factor Theory of Personality. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins,
& L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 159-181). Guilford Press.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the
perspective of the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57(1), 17-40.

McGrath, M. (n.d.). Chapter 18, Part 2: Eysenck’s Dimensions of Personality. Pressbooks.

[Link]

McGrath, M. (n.d.). Chapter 17, Part 2: Basic Concepts of Cattell’s Theory. Pressbooks.
[Link]

MSEd, K. C. (2024, June 26). What the trait theory says about our personality. Verywell Mind.
[Link]
personality-model

Murray, H. A., & Morgan, C. D. (1935). Thematic Apperception Test. Harvard University Press.

Musawar Ali, M. (2019, June 9). 16 personality factor. SlideShare.

[Link]

Myers, I. B., & Briggs, K. C. (1943). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). CPP.

Niwlikar, D. (2020, November 9th). careershodh. Retrieved from [Link]:

[Link]

Parr, A. D., Lanza, S. T., & Bernthal, P. (2016). Personality Profiles of Effective Leadership Performance
in Assessment Centers. Human performance, 29(2), 143–157.
[Link]

Rorschach, H. (1921). Psychodiagnostics: A diagnostic test based on perception. Bircher.

Schuerger, J.M. (March 1995). "Career Assessment and The Sixteen Personality Factor
Questionnaire". Journal of Career Assessment

Sharadze, S. (2024, June 17). What does Cattell’s sixteen personality factor (16PF) measure? What
Does Cattell’s Sixteen Personality Factor (16PF) Measure?
[Link]
16pf

Simply Psychology. (2024a, January 29). Cardinal traits of personality.

[Link]
Simply Psychology. (2023, December 20). Big 5 Personality Traits: The 5-Factor Model of Personality.
[Link]

Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. Technical
Report ASD-TR-61-97. U.S. Air Force.

UK Essays. (2024, September 20). 16 personality factor questionnaire test critique. UKEssays.
[Link]

Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20(2), 158-177.
[Link]