Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Copy of The Neo PI-R
Transcript of Copy of The Neo PI-R
Strong evidence for construct, convergent and divergent validity
Social desirability was not seen to influence responses
Three validity checks: Acquiescence, Nay-Saying, Random Responding
Three honesty checks are contained at the bottom of each test
Evaluators should be trained to check for random responding
The Multi Trait Multi-Method Matrix (MTMMM) was identified as a validity check by the use of both Form S and Form R
Within each facet, further tests were conducted to establish correlation between the NEO PI-R and other valid tests for measuring facets of personality
Validated against: the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator, Personality Research Form, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, and the Self Directed Search Internal consistencies for the individual facet scales ranged from .56-.81 in self reports and from .60-.90 in observer ratings.
The 48 item domain scales (comparing Form S with From R) have larger coefficient alphas ranging from .86-.95.
A small test of thirty-one women and men demonstrated a re-test reliability of the facet scales ranging from .66-.92.
A second test conducted on college students (three months between testing), showed re-test reliability of .79-.83.
A six year, longitudinal study of the N, E and O scales showed stability coefficient ranged from .68-.83 in self reports and spousal ratings.
A three year retest was completed on the A and C domains showing stability coefficients ranging from .63-.79. The NEO-PI demonstrated that it clearly measures enduring dispositions.
Short term re-test reliability can be improved N: Neuroticism
N2: Angry, Hostility
N6: Vulnerability E: Extraversion
E6: Positive emotions O: Openness
O6: Values A: Agreeableness
A6: Tender-mindedness C: Conscienctiousness
C4: Achievement Striving
C6: Deliberation Example of N1 question:
I am not a worrier Example of E3 question:
I sometimes fail to assert myself as much as I should. Example of O5 question:
I sometimes lose interest when people talk about abstract matters. Example of A2 question:
I would hate to be thought of as a hypocrite. Example of C5 question:
When a project gets too difficult I decline and start a new one. Insights Not a diagnostic tool
Useful for both clinicians and clients; provides insight into client's personality
Despite thorough research, we located no information on scoring procedures
Used to identify personality types of drug and alcohol abusers
Both test takers found the test very long. Clients may need to take a break so they maintain focus throughout all 240 items
Due diligence on behalf of the counsellor is required to ensure all questions are answered Norms Form S:
•Normative Aging Study: used original Factor 3 NEO model (2000 person sample size; broad representation of adult males)
•Augmented Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (ABLSA): original Factor 3 NEO model (400 men; 300 women; better educated than population in general)
•Peer Sample: review of BLSA (300 men and women)
Facet Scales A & C:
•Employment Sample: (1,800 men and women; developed college aged norms) Reliability Provides a useful framework for understanding structure and systems of Axis II personality disorders.
To give individuals a general idea of their ways of thinking, feeling and interacting with others.
Provide direction for mental health professionals working with clients
To be used in conjunction with counseling.
Does not measure intelligence or ability
Not intended to diagnose problems of mental health, or adjustment. Purpose Two different forms: Forms S (self-report) and Form R (observer-reports)
5-point scale - Strongly Disagree(0) to Strongly Agree(4)
Facet scales are internally comparable:
All have eight items
Balanced in keying to minimize the effects of acquiescent responding
Facets are evenly distributed across 240 test items
30 to 40 minutes required for completion.
Scores reported on "Your NEO Summary" providing
A brief explanation of the assessment
Strengths-based description of three levels (high, medium, and low) in each domain. Content
Some remain skeptical of client honesty when reporting
Supervisors may be prone to misinterpret the psychological significance of observed behaviour
Employers should not solely use this as a predictor of job performance and hireability
Conscientiousness is the most easily faked while Openness to Experience is the least easily faked
Length of test can skew results
It only describes, rather than explain personality types
Certain constructs of personality are better understood;
Counsellors, employers, and clients may place greater importance on certain facets; i.e. depression vs. happiness
Developed by Paul Costa, PhD and Robert Mc Crae, PhD
First published in 1978, revised in 1991
A personality inventory based on The Five Factor Model of personality developed by Carl Jung.
The five factors, also classified as 'Domains', contained in this model are:
3) Openness to Experience
5) Conscientiousness Insights Both test takers found the test very long. Shannon lost focus by question 220; Thomas by 215
Counsellors should double check to ensure all statements are answered
Both evaluators (Shannon and Thomas) questioned the reliability and validity of their test results due to lack of appropriate training in testing procedures and evaluation
Despite thorough research, no information on scoring and interpreting results was found
Counsellors should not take the results at face value, rather it should be a platform for further exploration and discussion Test Critique References Costa, P.T., McCrae, R.R. (1992). NEO PI-R Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources
Piedmont, R., & Weinstein, H. (1993). A psychometric evaluation of the new NEO-PIR facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness. Journal Of Personality Assessment, 60(2), 302-318.
Barbara Griffin, Beryl Hesketh, David Grayson, Applicants faking good: evidence of item bias in the NEO PI-R, Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 36, Issue 7, May 2004, Pages 1545-1558.
Widiger, T. A. (1992). Review of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. In J. C. Conoley & J. C. Impara (Eds.), The twelfth mental measurements. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Retrieved from Mental Measurements Yearbook database.