Constructing Personality and Intelligence Instruments

Most, Robert; Zeidner, Moshe

doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-5571-8_22

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of multiple scoring methods in objective assessment of EI contrasts with the scoring of conventional intelligence tests. The logic of facet-analytic thinking (see, e.g., Guttman & Levy, 1991; Most & Zeidner, 1995; Zeidner & Feitelson, 1989) is that the main criterion for an intelligence task is the application of a veridical criterion against which one judges a response as correct or incorrect. Often, intelligence test items are based on some formal, rule-bound system that indicated unequivocally whether an answer is correct.…”

Section: Conceptualizing and Assessing Eimentioning

confidence: 99%

Does emotional intelligence meet traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new data and conclusions.

Roberts¹,

Zeidner²,

Matthews³

2001

Emotion

Self Cite

458

312

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Performance-based measures of emotional intelligence (EI) are more likely than measures based on self-report to assess EI as a construct distinct from personality. A multivariate investigation was conducted with the performance-based, Multi-Factor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS; J. D. Mayer, D. Caruso, & P. Salovey, 1999). Participants (N ‫ס‬ 704) also completed the Trait Self-Description Inventory (TSDI, a measure of the Big Five personality factors; Christal, 1994; R. D. Roberts et al.), and the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB, a measure of intelligence). Results were equivocal. Although the MEIS showed convergent validity (correlating moderately with the ASVAB) and divergent validity (correlating minimally with the TSDI), different scoring protocols (i.e., expert and consensus) yielded contradictory findings. Analyses of factor structure and subscale reliability identified further measurement problems. Overall, it is questionable whether the MEIS operationalizes EI as a reliable and valid construct.

show abstract

Section: Conceptualizing and Assessing Eimentioning

confidence: 99%

Does emotional intelligence meet traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new data and conclusions.

Roberts¹,

Zeidner²,

Matthews³

2001

Emotion

Self Cite

458

312

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This comment is suggestive Of Sechrest's (as cited in Barnett & Zucker, 1990) "incremental validity:" the importance of the differential contribution of the test instrument (p. 67). It is this quality that led Most and Zeidner (1995), Macmann (1990), and to label predictive validity as one of the most important types of validity in regards to the practical use of psychological tests.…”

Section: Predictive Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Child Behavior Checklist 1.5–5

2013

Encyclopedia of Autism Spectrum Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) is used to assess the behavioral problems and social competencies of children. Its broad usage in both a practitioner and research context has led to misapplications as compared to the CBCL's original intended purpose. Practical applications vary from the more traditional mental health centers and medical contexts to schools and forensic applications. Furthermore, an exhaustive number of citations of the CBCL can be found in the research literature. These 1990's uses of the CBCL most probably do not coincide with the original intent or purpose of the CBCL. Additionally, the composition of the normative sample presents particular difficulties for establishing validity across different groups. Thus given the broad usage of the CBCL combined with potential validity biases, it is the purpose of this study to review the literature regarding the validity of CBCL. This review examines the original purpose of the test, the normative sample, and test development from the purview of content, concurrent, predictive, and construct validity. A call is made for additional research so as to facilitate practitioners' and researchers' understanding of the nature of the CBCL in regards to a given use on a specific population. (Contains 43 references.) (Author/TS)

show abstract

“…We agree. Moreover, while summarizing from the literature guidelines for writing personality items, Most and Zeidner (1995) adviseus to 'include relevant aspects of the situational context ' (p. 487).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The structure of situations from a personality perspective

Berge

Raad

2002

Eur J Pers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A taxonomy of situations was constructed that categorizes situations by means of ratings of one's ability to deal with those situations. A principal components analysis of self-and other-ratings yielded four components of situations: I, situations of pleasure; II, situations of individual adversity; III, situations of interpersonal conflict; and IV, situations of social demand. Ratings of being able to deal with a situation were related to ratings on a personality questionnaire. This resulted in a very clear set of situations for each of the Big Five factors of personality. The Big Five differed in kind and in number of situations for which they were able to distinguish the well handling from the less well handling persons. Especially, it turned out that the so-called temperament-factors, Extraversion, Emotional Stability, and also Autonomy, give rise to more situational differentiation than the socalled character-factors, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Comparing the present situation structure to that obtained in an earlier study, we found that using the same set of situations does not guarantee obtaining the same set of situation components. Different methods of classification yield differences in the resulting classifications.were defined in terms of objective situational characteristics, or attributes. The classification of the situation concepts according to these attributes has resulted in a situation taxonomy that consists of ten dimensions: (1) interpersonal conflict; (2) joint working, and the exchange of thoughts, ideals, and knowledge; (3) intimacy and interpersonal relations; (4) recreation; (5) travelling; (6) rituals; (7) sport; (8) excesses; (9) serving; and (10) trading. Until now, Van Heck's taxonomy of situations has been most useful one, because it was constructed on empirical grounds and, moreover, it comprises a broad situational domain. However, it does not include information about individual differences, indispensable from a trait psychologist's point of view.Ten Berge and De Raad (2001) constructed another item pool of situations in the spirit of the psycholexical approach, however using a different methodology. Instead of searching the dictionary for situations, they asked participants to describe situations in which people had shown a particular personality characteristic, yielding a collection of situations that are useful to observe individual differences. Unlike Van Heck (1984), Ten Berge and De Raad (2001) focused explicitly on the 'personality domain of situations', by collecting the situations that had shown to be fit for the expression of trait-relevant behaviour. This resulted in an initial situation pool of 2234 situations that was reduced to a final set of 237 situations.The 'collection' phase that is part of the developing process of a situation taxonomy is usually followed by a 'categorization' phase of the result of this collection. The categorization of situations has been performed through various methods, such as ratings of similarity of attributes of situations (c...

show abstract

Constructing Personality and Intelligence Instruments

Cited by 7 publications

References 20 publications

Does emotional intelligence meet traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new data and conclusions.

Does emotional intelligence meet traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new data and conclusions.

Child Behavior Checklist 1.5–5

The structure of situations from a personality perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About