ArticleIntegrative psychological & behavioral science2013
Peeking into personality test answers: inter- and intraindividual variety in item interpretations.
Article in Integrative psychological & behavioral science, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Statistics is not measurement: The inbuilt semantics of psychometric scales and language-based models obscures crucial epistemic differences.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- If Gordon Allport was right, the Likert-type personality scales must be very poor descriptors of personality: he was right.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Quantitative Data From Rating Scales: An Epistemological and Methodological Enquiry.Frontiers in psychology · 2018Article
- Is Personality a System? Stability, Process and Plasticity.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2015Review
- Developing "Personality" Taxonomies: Metatheoretical and Methodological Rationales Underlying Selection Approaches, Methods of Data Generation and Reduction Principles.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2015Review
- Interpreting "Personality" Taxonomies: Why Previous Models Cannot Capture Individual-Specific Experiencing, Behaviour, Functioning and Development. Major Taxonomic Tasks Still Lay Ahead.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2015Review
- Conceiving "personality": Psychologist's challenges and basic fundamentals of the Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2015Review
- Ideology, affect, semiotics: towards a non-personal theory of personality.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2014Article
- Personality as continuous stochastic process: what Western personality theory can learn from classical confucianism.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2014Article
- Personality psychology: lexical approaches, assessment methods, and trait concepts reveal only half of the story--why it is time for a paradigm shift.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Personality research of today applies basically inventories having neither unambiguously interpretable items nor responses. The substantive process of generating the test answer is rarely investigated and thus the possible field of meanings, out of which the answer is created, remains hidden. In order to investigate the possible array of spontaneous answers to personality test items, a situative open-ended personality inventory was developed to determine individuals' ways of interpreting personality test items and relevant personality descriptions for individuals. The children's sample (N = 704 of 10-13 year olds) answered five free-response contextualized personality test questions, each related to one of the Five Factor Model personality dimensions. It was revealed that there is no universal interpretation of an item. First, different children's answers to same question described different personality dimensions - substantial number of the respondents' answers did not reflect the personality domain assumed in an item. So there are several ways to interpret test questions; answers may refer to different personality dimensions and not necessarily the one assumed by the researcher. Second, a number of children mentioned more than one personality trait for one item, indicating that even within one person there may be several relevant interpretations of the same item. Considering personality traits as occurring one by one and mutually exclusively during personality test answering may be artificial; in reality trait combinations may reflect actual reaction. In sum, the results suggest there is no single predictable interpretational trajectory in meaning construction process if semiotically mediated constructs, e.g., personality reflection, are assessed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22987259What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.