Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences

Living Edition
| Editors: Virgil Zeigler-Hill, Todd K. Shackelford

Behavioral and Performance Measures of Personality

  • Tuulia M. Ortner
  • René T. Proyer
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1281-1

Synonyms

Definition

Behavioral and performance measures of personality, also referred to as objective personality tests (OPTs) or objective tests, are used to gather information about people’s characteristics by assessing their overt behavior in highly standardized miniature situations (Cattell and Warburton 1967). Scores from such measures are not based on introspection, self-estimation, or self-ratings with reference to these characteristics. Such tests also lack face validity with reference to the assessed characteristic or how the scores are obtained. Compared with self-report measures, OPTs are designed to be less susceptible to the manipulation and distortion of information, including faking and self-deception (see Ortner and Proyer 2015).

Introduction

It is remarkable that most researchers would estimate objectivetests of people’s cognitive abilities or...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Albany: Psychological Review Company.Google Scholar
  2. Baumert, A., Schlösser, T., & Schmitt, M. (2014). Economic games – Performance-based assessment of altruism and fairness. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30, 178–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cattell, J. M. (1890). Mental tests and measurements. Mind, 15, 373–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cattell, R. B. (1935). The measurement of interest. Character and Personality, 4, 147–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cattell, R. B. (1944). An objective test of character-temperament II. Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cattell, R. B. (1946). Description and measurement of personality. New York: World Book.Google Scholar
  7. Cattell, R. B. (1955). Handbook for the objective-analytic personality test batteries: (Including adult and child O-A batteries). Savoy: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.Google Scholar
  8. Cattell, R. B. (1957). Personality and motivation structure and measurement. New York: World Book Company.Google Scholar
  9. Cattell, R. B. (1968). The measurement of interest. In R. R. Knapp (Ed). Personality and Social Psychology – Collected papers of Raymond B. Cattell (pp. 171–183). San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  10. Cattell, R. B., & Schuerger, J. M. (1976). The objective-analytic (O-A) test kit. Champaign: IPAT.Google Scholar
  11. Cattell, R. B., & Warburton, F. W. (1967). Objective personality and motivation tests: A theoretical introduction and practical compendium. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cronbach, L. J. (1970). Essentials of psychological testing. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  13. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dislich, F. X. R., Zinkernagel, A., Ortner, T. M., & Schmitt, M. (2010). Convergence of direct, indirect, and objective risk taking measures in the domain of gambling: The moderating role of impulsiveness and self-control. Journal of Psychology, 218, 20–27.Google Scholar
  15. Fitts, P. M. (1946). German applied psychology during world war II. American Psychologist, 1, 151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hofmann, W., Gawronski, B., Gschwendner, T., Le, H., & Schmitt, M. (2005). A meta-analysis on the correlation between the implicit association test and explicit self-report measures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(10), 1369–1385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hundleby, J. D. (1973). The measurement of personality by objective tests. In P. Kline (Ed.), New approaches in psychological measurement (pp. 185–231). London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Hundleby, J. D., Pawlik, K., & Cattell, R. B. (1965). Personality factors in objective test devices. San Diego: Knapp.Google Scholar
  19. Jasper, F., & Ortner, T. M. (2014). The tendency to fall for distracting information while making judgments development and validation of the objective heuristic thinking test. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30, 193–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koch, T., Ortner, T. M., Eid, M., Caspers, J., & Schmitt, M. (2014). Evaluating the construct validity of objective personality tests using a multitrait-multimethod-multioccasion-(MTMMMO)-approach. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30, 209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lejuez, C. W., Read, J. P., Kahler, C. W., Richards, J. B., Ramsey, S. E., Stuart, G. L., …, & Brown, R. A. (2002). Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: The balloon analogue risk task (BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology, 8, 75–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Ortner, T. M. (2012). Teachers’ burnout is related to lowered speed and lowered quality for demanding short-term tasks. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 54, 20–35.Google Scholar
  23. Ortner, T. M., & Proyer, R. T. (2015). Objective personality tests. In T. M. Ortner & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Behavior based assessment in psychology (pp. 133–149). Oxford: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  24. Ortner, T. M., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2015). Assessment beyond self-reports. In T. M. Ortner & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Behavior-based assessment in psychology (pp. 3–11). Oxford: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  25. Pletzer, B., & Ortner, T. M. (2016). Neuroimaging supports behavioral personality assessment: Overlapping activations during reflective and impulsive risk taking. Biological Psychology, 119, 46–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Proyer, R. T. (2007). Convergence of conventional and behavior-based measures: Towards a multimethod approach in the assessment of vocational interests. Psychology Science Quarterly, 49, 168–183.Google Scholar
  27. Proyer, R. T., & Häusler, J. (2007). Assessing behavior in standardized settings: The role of objective personality tests. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 7, 537–546.Google Scholar
  28. Rubio, V. J., Hernández, J. M., Zaldivar, F., Marquez, O., & Santacreu, J. (2010). Can we predict risk-taking behavior? Two behavioral tests for predicting guessing tendencies in a multiple-choice test. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26, 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Santacreu, J., Rubio, V., & Hernandez, J. M. (2006). The objective assessment of personality: Cattells’s T-data revisited and more. Psychology Science, 48, 53–68.Google Scholar
  30. Schmidt-Atzert, L. (2007). Objektiver Leistungsmotivations Test (OLMT) [Objective achievement motivation test] [software and manual]. Mödling: Dr. G. Schuhfried GmbH.Google Scholar
  31. Schmitt, M., Hofmann, W., Gschwendner, T., Gerstenberg, F. X. R., & Zinkernagel, A. (2015). A model of moderated convergence between direct, indirect, and behavioral measures of personality traits. In T. M. Ortner & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Behavior based assessment in psychology (pp. 29–44). Oxford: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  32. Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 220–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ziegler, M., Schmidt-Atzert, L., Bühner, M., & Krumm, S. (2007). Faking susceptibility of different measurement methods: Questionnaire, semi-projective, and objective. Psychology Science, 49, 291–307.Google Scholar

Selected Bibliography

  1. Koch, T., Ortner, T. M., Eid, M., Caspers, J., & Schmitt, M. (2014). Evaluating the construct validity of objective personality tests using a multitrait-multimethod-multioccasion-(MTMM-MO)-approach. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30, 208–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ortner, T. M., & Caspers, J. (2011). Consequences of test anxiety on adaptive versus fixed item testing. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27, 157–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ortner, T. M., & Vormittag, I. (2011). Test administrator’s gender affects women’s and men’s self-estimated knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 21, 14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ortner, T. M., Weißkopf, E., & Gerstenberg, F. X. R. (2013). Skilled but unaware of it: CAT undermines a test taker’s metacognitive competence. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28, 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität SalzburgSalzburgAustria
  2. 2.Universität Halle-WittenbergHalleGermany

Section editors and affiliations

  • Matthias Ziegler
    • 1
  1. 1.Humboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany