Anda di halaman 1dari 17

Characteristics of Good Theories:

(1) Good at explaining a diverse set of phenomena


(2) Parsimoniousas simple as possible
(3) Testablecan be proven false through empirical test

Classic versus Modern Personality Theories:


Classic theoriestimely, grand in scope, comprehensive
Modern theoriesmini-theories, narrow in focus, precise
organized into theoretical approaches

Classic versus Modern Personality Theories:


Classic theoriestimely, grand in scope, comprehensive
Modern theoriesmini-theories, narrow in focus, precise
organized into theoretical approaches
Tradeoff:
Bandwidthrange of phenomena a theory can cover
Fidelityhow well a theory can explain the
phenomena it covers

Five issues personality theories should address:


1. Structure
What are the pieces?
Components (e.g., traits)
How are they related?

2. Process
What motivates you?
Dynamic--motivational concepts

3. Growth and Development


How did you become the person you are today?

4. Psychopathology
Coping with stress; finding satisfaction
vs. "abnormal" reactions--depression; paranoia;
anxiety attacks

5. Change
Are you stuck with your personality or can you
change?
(a) resisting change (constant environment; the
familiar is safe)
(b) factors facilitating change (life transitions;
relationships; therapy)

Basic Issues in Psychological Measurement


Measurement:
Describing personality phenomena,
preferably in quantitative form

Multiple perspectives:
Each has flaws and limitations.
Solution: Consider different data sources/methods
(L-O-T-S)

Data of Personality Psychology: LOTS


Life record data: obtained from formal records
e.g., arrest record, school record, voting record
Observer data: ratings made by knowledgeable informants
e.g., spouse, coworkers
Test data: score on standardized test or behavior
in standardized situation
e.g., Typing, IQ test, SAT
Self-report data: ratings made by self about self
e.g., self-esteem

Multiple measurement:
Inherent unreliability of human observations
Solution: Use multiple items/observations and
aggregate
Example: Exam questions; SAT; GPA

Reliability/Generalizability
The extent to which our measurements are
stable, dependable, and can be replicated
(question of generalizability)
(a) Generalize across time:

retest (stability)

(b) Generalize across items:


split-half or internal consistency
(c) Generalize across tests:
parallel tests or alternate forms
(d) Generalize across observers: interjudge agreement
How do these apply when we measure traits/states/activities?
e.g., Depression?

Validity
The extent to which our measure captures what we
think it measures (question of meaning/proper
interpretation of measurements)

Face-Validity
Does the measure seem, on it s face, to measure
what we claim in does?
e.g., set of math problems is high in face validity for
math ability

We don t always want our measure to have high


face validity.
e.g., racial attitudes, honesty, etc.

Major considerations when evaluating validity


(a) Content validity
Are the items on the test a representative sample of the
relevant content domain?
(b) Face validity
Do the items appear to measure the intended construct? (relevance)
(c) Criterion validityconcurrent and predict
Does the test score predict something else about the person now?
Does the test score predict something in the future?
(d) Convergent and discriminant validity
Does the test correlate with measures of similar constructs
but not with measures of constructs that should be unrelated?
(multiple choices & essay questions; exams & reports)

IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND


measures can be reliable but not at all valid
measure the same construct over and over and get the
same results (reliability), but you have not measured
what you really think your construct is (validity)
and ..
a measure that is not reliable CANNOT provide a valid
measure of anything
you are measuring something else each time

Anda mungkin juga menyukai