Kevin K.
Good Morning Esteemed Colleagues and Dr. Terzino,
Today I will be sharing some comparisons and contrasts on the use of observations and interviews in assessing personality. Included in this comparison will be an examination of the types, strengths and weaknesses, reliability, validity, ethical concerns and demographic issues. I will also determine when one of these methods might be preferred over the other. I will conclude this post with an explanation of the clinical judgement issues that might play a role in using these methods to assess personality.
At the core of this construct is the attempt to accurately assess personality. As we have learned from the reading this week, there are several methods for assessing personality. In this post I am going to examine two common ways to assess personality: observations and interviews. An observation is simply that, implanting one’s self into the targets environment and observing the subjects behavior anonymously. Some type of observational criteria is typically used to guide the observer to look for certain behaviors or patterns. Interviews are a predetermined series of questions designed to capture relevant traits or behaviors by the subject (Reynolds & Livingston, 2013). Results from the interview can then be used to form a treatment plan for the subject.
The strengths of both observations and interviews include simplicity and the use of predefined criteria – a checklist for the observation and a template for the interview (if the interview is structured) (Martin, 2007). Weaknesses for the observation include confounding variables (a variable that could influence what is being observed, but unknown by the researcher) and the risk of an untrained observer not carefully observing for the right things (Landrum, 2013). A weakness of the interview may include interview bias where the interviewer could bias the subjects response based on feedback from the subjects’ response (e.g. a positive answer from the subject might get a positive reaction from the interviewer) (Cosby, 2007).
Validity and reliability from observations and interviews can vary greatly based on the skill of the observer/interviewer and the structure of the situation. As an example, an observer needs to be very careful to not be detected by the subject as knowing that one is being observed can influence behavior. Also, can vary based on the structure of the interview. Some interviews use preformed questions, which would increase reliability. But an open end interview can lead to varying results, making reliability suspect (Mills, 2014).
As far as preference of one over the other, it depends on the study, and the type of data the researcher is after. As an example, I was once reviewing a study on characteristics of drug dealers. It would be very difficult to survey these individuals, but an observational study might get the data the researcher is after. Conversely, a survey may be appropriate when the construct is narrowly defined, and subjects may be dispersed. As an example, when I was working on my dissertation, I was after the connection between continuous learning and career assentation. It would be impossible to observe this, but a survey filled in the blanks for me.
Clinical judgement is a term typically used in the medical field to determine the best course of diagnosis and treatment for a patient (subject) (Landrum, 2013). In respect to assessing personality, a clinical judgement issue is determining the best process for gathering data and then evaluating the data to make sense of the situation. In light of this discussion forum, I believe that clinical judgement plays a role in applying the results to explain personality and associated behavior. In other words, the researcher (clinician) needs to determine the meaning of the results, and how they apply to real world situations.
REFERENCES
Cozby, P. (2007). Methods in Behavioral Research (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Landrum, R. E. (2013). Research design for educators: Real-world connections and applications. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
Martin, D.W. (2007). Doing Psychology Experiments (7th ed.). United States: Thompson/Wadsworth.
Mills, G. E. (2014). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Reynolds, C. R., & Livingston, R. B. (2013). Mastering modern psychological testing: Theory & methods. Pearson Higher Ed. ISBN-10: 020548350X • ISBN-13: 9780205483501
Needs help with similar assignment?
We are available 24x7 to deliver the best services and assignment ready within 3-12hours? Order a custom-written, plagiarism-free paper
Get Answer Over WhatsApp
Order Paper Now