Talk:Personality test

message: Missing aspect. Electrodermal Activity for physiological measures commonly used in personality research. Larsen et al in Personality Psychology - Domains of Knowledge about Human Nature, p. 165. McGraw-Hill (2013), 5th ed. (European version) I think. Care to add? 193.69.139.160 (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples of personality tests

message: This article is good about keeping a neutral tone about the topic through its length. The article, does however, have a poor citation to text proportion. There are large paragraphs that are completely devoid of any references at all like in the "Respondent Faking" and "Test Development" sections. Many of the citations are also rather out of date. Adding more sources and replacing older ones with more up to date information would be an easy place to begin improving the article. (for personality theory class wiki project) MLYCCX (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Too much uncited detail. The entry needs to be shortened radically, and a seprate, properly sourced article created. Quakerman 16:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have edited Katherine's entry to make it more objective. I do hope she will write the page for her instrument. TeamCoachingNetwork 22:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There's a fair number of tests at the same site that hosts the Robin Hood Morality Test.  Is a site such as this worth mentioning? 204.13.204.194 (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collection of Tests 

message: Substituted at 02:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Personality test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130605085027/http://filebox.vt.edu/r/rammu/Research%20Methods%20Articles/Hogan.pdf to http://filebox.vt.edu/r/rammu/Research%20Methods%20Articles/Hogan.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320081037/http://www.truecolorsassociation.org/faq.php to http://www.truecolorsassociation.org/faq.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121231085101/http://bluesagestrategies.com/pro-d.html to http://www.bluesagestrategies.com/pro-d.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Personality test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131027081900/http://www.ssca.com/resources/articles/104 to http://www.ssca.com/resources/articles/104
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Under the "Biased test taker interpretation" section information about observer reports could be added. Self reports can be tainted by the person not knowing their personality as well as they think, or faking answers to questions to receive more desirable test results (for social, work related, or personal reasons), both intentionally or unintentionally. This is where observer reports come in. People may act differently than they realize, therefore, observer reports may give more accurate information in that sense. The down sides to observer reports include the observer only observing the person in certain situations, not being able to read the person very well, and the observer's own desire to give bias or incorrect answers. It is very likely people act differently in different environments. If a work peer is evaluating someone they are likely to give different answers than close friends. However, just because an observer spends time with someone in multiple situations does not mean they can accurately interpret actions for what they really are. Finally, the observer may give bias answers. A spouse may over exaggerate their partners caring tenancies, a mother may only want to see the good in her child, an ex-friend may falsely over highlight negative qualities. --Kbuecker (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self- vs. Observer reports 

message: In this article I did not notice a bias towards any one idea, all the information seemed to be neutral. However, there were some things that I noticed, that I think there could be improvements on. The first thing that I noticed was at times, there were unnecessary words that were added into the sentences. There also seemed to be a lot more information and sources used on certain subtopics compared to other topics. It makes it seem like not all the information in the article is important when there is a shortage of sources and knowledge for certain areas. I also think that more up to date sources could provide a better backing for the information that is being used, a lot of the sources are from the 90s or the early 2000s. One last thing that I noticed was that it talks about the different types of personality tests but does not really explain whether or not those tests are reliable or valid. Jadeynmetcalf (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Evaluation for Personality Theory 

message: The "additional applications" and "psychological research" sections are very bare, and these could be greatly expanded on. Psychological research could include more information about future research on more accurate tests, such as the HEXACO assessment. A section about the direction that the field is heading is needed, since it is a constantly researched topic with a lot going on currently. I also did not see anywhere how the Big-5 assessment holds prominence due to its wide-spread usage and proven reliability, and this does not necessarily make it the most accurate assessment. In this "future research" section, something should also be said about the role of technology in personality assessments, since this is bringing new light to the field and is already making drastic changes to personality tests as we know them. Technology changes the conventional idea of a personality test being a multiple choice test--it does so with implementations of big data, gamification, wearable technology, and more (https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/cpb-cpb0000106.pdf). These and even other areas of research are changing the field and are undoubtedly significant to the topic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Personality Dude (talk • contribs) 01:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  More information is needed on current and future research